Download Marine Litter in Nordic waters

TemaNord 2015:521
TemaNord 2015:521
Ved Stranden 18
DK-1061 Copenhagen K
www.norden.org
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
This report provides an overview of the currently available
data from studies on marine litter in the Nordic countries.
This covers various field studies on amount, distribution,
characteristics and impact of macro- and micro-litter
particles. The data reported can provide a good basis
for prioritisation of activities, especially having the
establishment of marine litter indicators for EU’s Marine
Strategy Framework Directive monitoring and national
management plans in the Nordic countries in mind.
TemaNord 2015:521
ISBN 978-92-893-4030-4 (PRINT)
ISBN 978-92-893-4031-1 (PDF)
ISBN 978-92-893-4032-8 (EPUB)
ISSN 0908-6692
TN2015521 omslag.indd 1
11-05-2015 08:00:03
Marine Litter in Nordic waters JakobStrand,ZhannaTairova,JóhannisDanielsen,
JensWürglerHansen,KerstinMagnusson,Lars‐JohanNaustvoll
andThomasKirkSørensen
TemaNord2015:521
MarineLitterinNordicwaters
JakobStrand,ZhannaTairova,JóhannisDanielsen,JensWürglerHansen,KerstinMagnusson,
Lars‐JohanNaustvollandThomasKirkSørensen
ISBN978‐92‐893‐4030‐4(PRINT)
ISBN978‐92‐893‐4031‐1(PDF)
ISBN978‐92‐893‐4032‐8(EPUB)
http://dx.doi.org/10.6027/TN2015‐521
TemaNord2015:521
ISSN0908‐6692
©NordicCouncilofMinisters2015
Layout:HanneLebech
Coverphoto:JakobStrand;KrestenHansen;SørenKristensen
Print:Rosendahls‐SchultzGrafisk
Copies:200
PrintedinDenmark
ThispublicationhasbeenpublishedwithfinancialsupportbytheNordicCouncilofMinisters.
However,thecontentsofthispublicationdonotnecessarilyreflecttheviews,policiesorrecom‐
mendationsoftheNordicCouncilofMinisters.
www.norden.org/nordpub
Nordicco‐operation
Nordicco‐operationisoneoftheworld’smostextensiveformsofregionalcollaboration,involv‐
ingDenmark,Finland,Iceland,Norway,Sweden,andtheFaroeIslands,Greenland,andÅland.
Nordicco‐operationhasfirmtraditionsinpolitics,theeconomy,andculture.Itplaysanim‐
portantroleinEuropeanandinternationalcollaboration,andaimsatcreatingastrongNordic
communityinastrongEurope.
Nordicco‐operationseekstosafeguardNordicandregionalinterestsandprinciplesinthe
globalcommunity.CommonNordicvalueshelptheregionsolidifyitspositionasoneofthe
world’smostinnovativeandcompetitive.
NordicCouncilofMinisters
VedStranden18
DK‐1061CopenhagenK
Phone(+45)33960200
www.norden.org
Contents
Preface ............................................................................................................................................................ 7
Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................11
What is marine litter? .....................................................................................................................13
Sources and fate of the marine litter ........................................................................................14
Impact of marine litter in the environment ..........................................................................18
Marine litter as an environmental indicator.........................................................................21
1. Overview of studies on macro-litter indicators with emphasis toward
findings in the Nordic countries.................................................................................................25
1.1
Beach litter ............................................................................................................................25
1.2
Macro-litter on the seafloor ...........................................................................................31
1.3
Macro-litter floating in the water column ................................................................34
1.4
Ingestion and impact of macro-litter in biota .........................................................34
2. Overview of studies on micro-litter indicators with emphasis on findings
in the Nordic countries ..................................................................................................................41
2.1
Microplastic in the water column ................................................................................44
2.2
Microplastics on the beaches and in sub-tidal sediments .................................46
2.3
Microplastics in marine biota ........................................................................................48
3. Status for management actions on marine litter with relevance for Nordic
waters....................................................................................................................................................51
3.1
Current status for implementing Marine Strategy Framework
Directive and national management plans in the Nordic countries.............51
3.2
Status for some international activities related to management of
marine litter ..........................................................................................................................55
4. Conclusions .........................................................................................................................................61
5. References ...........................................................................................................................................65
6. Sammenfatning .................................................................................................................................71
7. Workshop 1 Programme and participants ...........................................................................73
8. Workshop 2 Programme and participants ...........................................................................75
Preface
This report is one of the outcomes of a Nordic project called “Marine
litter in the Nordic waters” funded by The Marine Group (HAV) under
The Nordic Council of Ministers in 2013–2014.
The main aim of the project was to establish a Nordic forum for collaboration and exchange of knowledge on status for methodologies and
available data for marine litter between Nordic experts, environmental
managers and stakeholders, due to the common environmental concerns
in our shared seas. This report compiles information that can be used as
a contribution to facilitate the framing of this environmental problem in
a Nordic perspective. This report includes also input from two workshops on I) Common knowledge status on marine litter in the Nordic
countries, and indicators relevant for EU Marine Strategy Framework
Directive (November 14, 2013 in Gothenburg, Sweden) and II) Status for
monitoring and Future actions (November 6–7, 2014 in Oslo, Norway).
The affiliations of the authors are as follows:
• Jakob Strand, 1 Zhanna Tairova,1 Jóhannis Danielsen, 2
Jens Würgler Hansen,1 Kerstin Magnusson,3 Lars-Johan Naustvoll4
and Thomas Kirk Sørensen. 3
──────────────────────────
Aarhus University (Denmark).
Swedish Environmental Research Institute (Sweden).
3 Technical University of Denmark.
1
2
Summary
In recent years there has been an increased focus on environmental
problems arising from litter pollution in the oceans after various studies
have described instances of vast amounts of litter including microscopic
particles consisting of plastic debris and other synthetic materials. International institutions such as EU, OSPAR, HELCOM and UN have identified marine litter as an important issue that should be prioritized both in
terms of knowledge building and the development of environmental
indicators that can be used for characterization of the environmental
quality. In Europe, marine litter is now high on the environmental agenda, especially after the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) with obligations for all the EU member states.
Subsequently, marine litter has also received increasing attention in the
Nordic countries.
In Nordic countries, there has been and are also several on-going
field studies, including research, monitoring and other types of surveys.
These studies demonstrate ubiquitous occurrence of marine litter in the
Baltic Sea, the North Sea and the North Atlantic as well as in the Arctic,
where marine litter have been found in all relevant marine compartments, i.e. at beaches, in the water column (incl. sea ice), on the sea floor
(incl. in sediments) and in biota.
This report provides an overview of the currently available data from
studies on marine litter in the Nordic countries. This covers various field
studies on amount, distribution, characteristics and impact of macroand micro-litter particles. The data reported can provide a good basis for
prioritisation of activities, especially having the establishment of marine
litter indicators for MSFD monitoring and national management plans in
the Nordic countries in mind. However, results from the different Nordic
studies are not always comparable due to employment of different
methodologies for sampling and analyses have been employed. There is
therefore a need for a common assemblage of knowledge and experience, and also a standartisation of methods based on the regional conditions that facilitate the framing of this environmental problem in a Nordic perspective. This report compiles information that can be used as a
contribution to this process.
Introduction
Marine litter, i.e. man-made solid waste in the marine environment, has
become a subject of major concern in recent decades, due to the increasing awareness of the widespread occurrence of litter in the marine environment. Globally, huge amounts of man-made solid waste materials end
up in the oceans from both land- and sea-based sources. Levels of marine litter are presumed to be rising with the increasing global population densities and industrial production. This is in spite of the fact that
better facilities for reception, treatment and disposal facilities for waste
have been established in the recent decades, especially in the more industrialized countries.
Plastic waste materials are of special concern, as plastic items are
highly persistent and compose the dominating category of marine litter.
Plastic debris can pose a risk to the marine environment, by causing
physical damage in marine organisms via ingestion or entanglement and
also due to potential toxic effects caused by inherent plastic constituents
and complex mixture of external contaminants adsorbed onto plastic
(Derraik 2002, Rochman et al. 2013).
The widespread and global scale of the distribution of plastic litter
together with scientific evidence of potential deleterious effects in marine organisms combined with non-diminishing global plastic production has led to increasing concern among the general public together
with national and international authorities like UNEP, EU, OSPAR and
HELCOM. Marine litter is now recognized by a wide range of stakeholders as an environmental issue, and is included in for instance the EU
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD 2008/56/EC) as one of the
eleven qualitative descriptors which describe what the environment
should look like to achieve or maintain good environmental status (GES)
in the marine environment by 2020 (European Commission, 2008).
However, it has also been recognized that as of today there is only a limited amount of information about the regional differences in sources,
levels, composition, fate and impact of marine litter in the marine environment. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) implies
establishment of monitoring programmes for assessment, enabling the
state and impact of the marine waters to be evaluated on a regular basis.
Figure 1.1. Clean up activities of marine litter from beaches and other coastlines
will often generate large amounts of garbage, which originate from both seabased sources, e.g. ropes and derelict fishing gear, and land-based sources like
plastic garbage from recreational activities
Photo: Jakob Strand, Denmark 2012.
In the Nordic countries various studies on marine litter have been performed, mainly at national levels and within the frames of different
types of research projects, environmental monitoring and management
and NGO activities. Recently, several marine litter activities have been
initiated parallel with the implementation of EU MSFD in Europe and
thereby also in some of the Nordic countries, i.e. Sweden, Denmark and
Finland. In Norway and Iceland, although not members of EU, national
management plans for the marine environment in these countries also
include many of the same important elements as in the EU MSFD and
also targeting marine litter. For the other Nordic countries that are not
EU Member States, i.e. Faroe Islands and Greenland, marine litter can
also be relevant for their national marine management plans, although it
is not at the moment targeted as a specific element within these plans.
There is therefore a need for the accumulation of knowledge and experience, based on the regional conditions to perceive this environmental problem in a Nordic perspective. Joint collaboration on exchange of
knowledge on methodologies, status for monitoring and assessment
strategies as well as available data in the Nordic countries is a necessary
element in this process.
As an initiative for such an exchange of knowledge in this scientifically fast developing area, this report aims to establish an overview of current research and monitoring activities and available data on marine
12
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
litter in the Nordic countries covering various sea regions, i.e. both in the
Baltic Sea, Skagerrak–Kattegat, North Sea, North Atlantic and the Arctic.
This collection of knowledge can act as a contribution to the further
process for development of robust and relevant indicators for monitoring
and assessment of sources, properties, levels and impact of marine litter
in our common seas, both at national, regional and more international
levels, and also support the initiated process of developing regional action
plans for marine litter both in the North Sea and in the Baltic Sea.
What is marine litter?
Marine litter is any persistent, manufactured or processed solid material discarded, disposed of or abandoned in the marine and coastal
environment (United Nations Environment Programme, 2005). Monitoring studies of marine litter and the beach surveys demonstrate that
it comprises of various constituents such as plastics, metals, glass, ceramics, rubber, processed wood, clothing, paper etc. (Aniansson et al.
2007, Cheshire & Adler, 2009, Galgani et al. 2010). The review of literature and studies on marine litter, also called marine debris, demonstrates that plastic debris comprise most of the marine litter worldwide (Aniansson et al. 2007, Derraik, 2002).
Global plastic production has increased rapidly for the past several
decades and was estimated to be 280 million tonnes in 2012 and predicted to become as high as 33 billion tonnes in 2050. It has been estimated that less than half of it was recycled or delivered to landfills. Of
the remaining ~150 million tonnes plastics, some may still be in use or it
is has ended as litter in the environment (Rochman et al. 2013).
Marine litter exists as a wide variety of items and particles with multiple shapes and sizes due to diversity of origins. As the size and properties of litter determine their distribution, environmental retention and
consequent impact in the environment, it has been necessary to establish a common classification for the marine debris. A master list on nomenclature for different categories of macro-litter items has therefore
been compiled in the EU guidance document for monitoring of marine
Litter in European seas (Galgani et al. 2013) that can be used for a more
harmonised identification of macro-litter items as either washed ashore
at beaches, floating in water column, deposited on sea floor or being
taken up by marine wildlife.
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
13
For micro-litter, there is still no general consensus about a specific size
nomenclature, but there is now a general agreement that it concerns particles < 5 mm (Galgani et al. 2013). The lower size limit used for identification and quantification of micro-litter particles is still very much dependent on the sampling and processing methods and environmental matrices
analysed, and it will therefore often vary between studies (Galgani et al.
2013, Hidalgo–Ruz et al. 2012).
In order to enable the comparison of monitoring results between regions and environmental compartments and to describe the most likely
sources it is necessary to implement a common categorization of litter.
This is also needed to enhance the assessment of marine litter and related potential harm.
Sources and fate of the marine litter
Marine litter is entering the sea from many sources, because materials
can get lost during production, transport, uses and disposal of the materials. Within the frames of OSPAR Pilot Project on Monitoring waste that
ends up as marine litter on beaches in the OSPAR region were identified
(Aniansson et al. 2007):
• Fishing, including aquaculture.
• Galley waste (non-operational waste from shipping, fisheries and
offshore activities).
• Shipping, including offshore activities (operational waste).
• Sanitary and medical waste (sewage-related waste).
• Public littering (e.g. tourism and other recreational activities).
UNEP has also identified the main sources to marine litter washed
ashore on beaches and has divided them into either sea- or land-based
sources (UNEP 2005).
14
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
Main sea-based sources
Main land-based sources
Merchant shipping, ferries and cruise liners
Municipal landfills (waste dumps) located on the coast
Fishing vessels
Riverine transport of waste from landfills, etc., along
rivers and other inland waterways
Military fleets and research vessels
Discharges of untreated municipal sewage and storm
water (including occasional overflows)
Pleasure craft
Industrial facilities (accidental spills, solid waste from
landfills, and untreated waste water)
Offshore oil and gas platforms
Tourism and other recreational activities at the coast
Aquaculture installations
On a global scale, land-based sources are estimated to contribute for
some 80% of marine litter, with the remaining 20% originating from
sea-based sources. This percent relation between sources, however,
varies between different regions. A study on land-based sources for litter in the Mediterranean, North and Baltic Seas noted that the landbased sources accounted for 75% to 90% of the total number of marine
litter items found during the collection of beach litter (Mehlhart & Blepp
2012). Land-based sources are also predominant, contributing to all of
the top ten types of litter found at the Mediterranean region.
The MSFD GES Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter reviews variation in
marine litter sources between regional seas (JRC Scientific and Technical
Reports 2011). In the Mediterranean, 80% of the waste was thought to be
from land-based sources, mainly related to shoreline and recreational activities. In the southern North Sea shipping, fishery industry and offshore installations were the main sources of litter collected on German and Dutch
beaches. In the Baltic Sea main contributing sources for litter vary in different areas of the sea. Tourism and recreational use of the coasts, together
with the river fishery and waste dumping were identified as major landbased sources, while commercial shipping and pleasure craft are identified
as major sea-based sources for litter in the Baltic Sea.
It is estimated, based on data from the North Sea and the waters
around Australia, that 70% of the marine litter that enters the sea ends
up on the seabed, whereas around 15% is found on coastlines and the
last 15% of the litter is floating on the water surface (UNEP 2005).
Marine litter in the Nordic waters can originate from local, regional
sources and global sources because of long-range transport of marine
litter with ocean currents. It is well known due to the previous observations and modelling results that marine debris are transported with
ocean currents and can occur in greater concentrations in so-called
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
15
“Garbage Patches” within specific regions (Figure 1.2), e.g. in the Pacific,
Atlantic and Indian Oceans (Moore 2008, Kaiser 2010).
Figure 1.2. A schematic diagram of the existing five gyres in the world oceans
where marine litter accumulates, driven by the ocean currents own production
In the Nordic waters, which cover parts of the Arctic, the North Atlantic,
the North Sea, the Skagerrak–Kattegat, the Belt Sea and the Baltic Sea,
ocean currents are also very important transport factors. For instance,
the warm trans-Atlantic surface current reaches the North Sea and
Skagerrak en route to the North Atlantic. A part of the North Atlantic
current will also continue along the Norwegian west coast towards the
Arctic. Thereby long range transport of litter with these ocean currents
can potentially result in an accumulation of litter in the Arctic region, for
instance in the Barents Sea (Figure 1.3). The residual circulation from
the North Sea is also passing along the Norwegian coast after mixing
with the outflow from the Baltic and the Skagerrak (Figure 1.4). The
shelf currents along the Danish and Norwegian western coasts are predominantly from south to north. This mixing of the currents is creating a
local circulation in the Skagerrak region which can function as an accumulation area for the marine litter, including the floating fraction. In
addition, the outflow of the low saline water from the Baltic as a surface
water layer may also be a minor contributor to marine litter in the Skagerrak. On the other hand, the inflow of the more saline water from the
North Sea as a bottom layer into Kattegat and the Belt Sea and the Sound
can function as opposite transport routes that can potentially bring marine litter from the North Sea and into the Baltic Sea.
16
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
Figure 1.3. A schematic diagram of the ocean currents from the North Atlantic,
supporting the potential of the marine litter to be brought to the Arctic
Other hydrographic studies have also shown that large quantities of
particulate suspended matter from the southern North Sea are accumulated in the Skagerrak region between Sweden, Norway and Denmark
due to the prevailing currents and winds (Eisma & Kalf, 1987, de Haas et
al. 2002). Thus it is very likely that marine litter from the southern
North Sea, especially the floating fraction or from resuspended sediments will also tend to end up in Skagerrak. It has been estimated that
the coastal areas in Skagerrak receive about 10% of all marine litter in
the North Sea, although they comprise only about 2% of the total North
Sea coastline (UNEP 2005). This is in line with the fact that e.g. the Swedish western shores have experienced very large problems with marine
litter for decades (SwAM 2012).
In addition, findings of microplastic in sea ice from the Arctic ocean
have indicated that microplastics can accumulate in some areas far from
population centers and that polar sea ice could represent a major historic global sink of man-made particulates (Obbard et al. 2014).
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
17
Figure 1.4. A schematic diagram of the general circulation of the ocean currents
in the North Sea and Skagerrak, which also include input of Atlantic water Gulf
stream currents. Modified from OSPAR 2000
Impact of marine litter in the environment
The presence of plastic in the marine environment was already noted 40
years ago by e.g. Carpenter et al. (1972) and Colton et al. (1974) who
found plastic in fish guts and surface plankton samples.
The UNEP analytical overview of marine litter (United Nations Environment Programme, 2005) states: “Marine litter kills, injures and causes
pain and suffering and every year entails great economic costs and losses
to people and communities around the world”. Whereas some of the negative effects are obvious (e.g. marine safety, aesthetic problems), others,
such as effects of plastics ingestion by the wild-life and potential toxicity of
the microplastic have only begun to be recognised and studied (Aniansson
et al. 2007; Rochman et al. 2013). It has been estimated that plastic debris
are the major contributor to marine litter (Aniansson et al. 2007, Derraik,
2002). Being more persistent in nature than most other types of marine
litter, plastic pollution poses a serious environmental threat.
18
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
Figure 1.5. Entanglement of the seabird northern gannet in rope-pieces and
derelict fishing gear are a relatively common cause of death for this species in
the North Sea region
Photo: Kresten Hansen, Denmark 2012.
The potentially harmful effects of marine plastics, both macro- and micro-particles, for the marine ecosystem as well as humans can mainly be
grouped into following four categories:
• Ingestion and entanglement of wildlife.
• Source and vector for contaminants in marine waters.
• Spreading of non-indigenous species and pathogens.
• Socio-economic effects.
Ingestion and entanglement of wildlife, e.g. sea birds, mammals, are
clear and visible evidences of the severe effects that marine litter can
have in the marine ecosystem.
More susceptible are the potential risks of ingested macro- and micro- plastics that can act as a source to toxic plastic constituents or as a
vector for other hydrophobic contaminants occurring in the environment and which can be absorbed into the plastic from the surroundings.
The ingestion of microplastics, which has been demonstrated in a range
of marine organisms may facilitate the transfer of toxic compounds, i.e.
inherent contaminants, e.g. plastic additives, leaching from the plastic
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
19
material, or extraneous lipophilic pollutants, adhered to the plastic material from the environmental matrices and disassociating into organisms’ tissues (Browne et al. 2008; Cole et al. 2011).
Similar impacts may apply for plastic constituents, i.e. plasticisers and
degradation products from polymers that are the compounds incorporated into plastics during manufacture in order to change their properties
and/or extend the life span of the plastic by providing resistance to heat,
oxidative damage and microbial degradation (Cole et al. 2011). Some of
these additives (e.g. phthalates, bisphenol A, alkylphenols and polybrominated flame retardants) are of health and environmental concern since
they are potential carcinogens and endocrine disruptors and can leach out
of ingested plastic particles, introducing potentially hazardous chemicals
into the organism.
In the environment, hydrophobic contaminants like organochlorines,
PAHs, etc will associate with organic matter. In this respect, man-made
synthetic particles like plastics have comparable properties with naturally occuring organic matter.
Studies have indicated that plastic particles in sediments may be an
important source for some hydrophobic organic contaminants like
PAHs, as plastics were shown to have greater affinity for PAH compared
with natural sediments and also that addition of small amounts of contaminated microplastics increase accumulation of PAHs in the sediment
dwelling organisms (Teuten et al. 2007, Teuten et al. 2009). Another
example on significant transfer of plastic-derived/-associated chemicals
to biota is from a Japanese study on seabirds finding generally higher
levels of brominated flame retardants in tissues from the birds when
also the plastic isolated from their stomachs contained high levels of
these compounds (Tanaka et al. 2013). It has also been raised that the
accumulation of plasticisers like phthalates in Mediterranean cetaceans
can be associated with the potential intake of plastic particles by water
filtering and plankton ingestion (Fossi et al. 2012).
Marine litter can act as carrier for exotic species from other continents,
and thereby be a potential route for introducing non-indigenous species.
Pelagic plastic items floating in the oceans are commonly colonized by
various species like bryozoans, barnacles, tube worms, foraminifera, coralline algae, hydroids and bivalve molluscs, and in between also species
mainly occurring in the tidal zones. Potentially, dispersal of aggressive
alien and invasive species by these mechanisms could endanger sensitive,
or at-risk coastal environments (both marine and terrestrial) far from
their native habitats (Gregory 2009).
20
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
Another biological problem may rise from that litter items in the aquatic environments also will be covered by biofilm consisting of complex
microbial communties (Hoellein et al. 2014). Potentially, marine litter can
thereby also be carriers of harmful pathogens and bacteria from local
point sources like waste water treatment plants or medical waste or from
long range transport across the oceans. For instance a study on microbial
communities on plastic items floating in the North Atlantic showed that
the communities were distinct from the communities in the surrounding
surface water, implying that plastic serves as a novel ecological habitat in
the open ocean. It was indicated that plastic items also could act as carriers of opportunistic pathogens, because microbes of genus Vibrio dominated on one of the analysed plastic samples (Zetler et al. 2013).
Regarding the socio-economic effects of marine litter, they can be
grouped into a number of general categories: damage to the installations
and equipment used at sea (e.g. fishing boats and gear, cooling water intakes in power stations), contamination of beaches, harbours and marinas,
contamination of coastal grazing land, causing injury to livestock, safety
risks at sea (e.g. fouling of propellers), potential cause of health issues
(injuries, disease) from litter on beaches and in bathing water, including
medical waste.
Marine litter as an environmental indicator
It has been recognised that a number of related indicators are needed
for assessing state and impact of marine litter depending on the marine
compartment to be assessed, i.e. shores, water column, sea floor and
biota (JRC 2011). Such indicators are therefore also recognised in the
MSFD, which aims to establish a framework within the EU, so the member states can take measures to achieve or maintain good environmental
status (GES) in the marine environment by 2020.
One of the eleven qualitative descriptors for determining GES, “Descriptor 10”, within the MSFD is: “Properties and quantities of marine
litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment” (European Commission, 2010). There are two criteria concerning characteristics and impacts of marine litter under descriptor 10, and four general
indicators for marine litter are described (Table 1.1).
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
21
Table 1.1. Criteria and indicators for marine litter in Descriptor 10 from MSFD (European Commission, 2010)
Criteria 1:
Characteristics of litter in the marine and coastal
environment
Criteria 2:
Impacts of litter on marine life
GES Indicators:
Amount, composition, spatial distribution and where
possible the source of:
-Litter washed ashore and/or deposited on
coastlines
-Litter in the water column (including floating at the
surface) and deposited on the seafloor
-Micro-particles (in particular micro- plastics)
GES Indicators:
Amount and composition of:
-Litter ingested by marine animals (e.g. stomach
analysis)
However, it needs to be developed further, based
on the experience in some sub-regions and
adapted in other regions
The methodologies used for achieving data for the different GES indicators will generally fall into one of the following basic types (Maes & Garnacho 2013.
Beach litter surveys, which include:
• Collection of litter on shorelines (100 m or 1 km streches).
Seafloor litter surveys, which include:
• Observations made by divers, submersibles or camera tows (ROVs).
• Collection of litter via benthic trawls.
Floating litter surveys, which include:
• Observations (visual/camera) made from ship or aerial based
platforms.
• Collection of litter via surface trawls.
• Plastic ingestion by seabirds, fulmar (suggested recently by OSPAR).
Biota surveys of ingested litter or entanglement, which include:
• Birds
• Mammals
• Fish
• Other (e.g. turtles).
• Surveys of micro-litter
• Sediments (subtidal/tidal/Beaches)
22
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
• Water (Surface/Suspended)
• Biota (Invertebrates/fish).
HELCOM (HELCOM CORESET 2014) and OSPAR (OSPAR 2014b; T. Maes
& J. Mouat, pers. comm.) are currently in the process of developing a set
of regional marine litter indicators targeting the different GES indicators
in MSFD, so they can be recommended common or candidate indicators
for the Baltic Sea and North-East Atlantic (including the North Sea), respectively (Table 1.2).
Table 1.2. Specific marine litter indicators currently in the process of being recommended by HELCOM (HELCOM CORESET 2014) and OSPAR (OSPAR 2014b,
Maes, pers. comm.) as indicators for the Baltic Sea and North-East Atlantic, respectively. The status of the indicators as common or candidate indicators in the
current process of developing a set of regional marine litter indicators is also
included as presented at the 2nd Nordic workshop “Marine litter–monitoring and
management in the Nordic context”, 6–7 November 2014
Marine litter indicators
OSPAR
HELCOM
Litter washed ashore and/or deposited on
coastlines
Beach litter
(Common indicator)
Beach litter
(Candidate indicator)
Litter in the water column (including
floating at the surface)
Plastic particles in stomachs of fulmars
(Common indicator for the North Sea)
-
Litter deposited on the sea-floor
Seabed litter using International
Bottom Trawl Surveys (IBTS)
(Prioritized candidate indicator)
Seabed litter using Bottom
Trawl Surveys (BITS/IBTS)
(Candidate indicator)
Micro-litter
(in particular microplastics)
Microplastics, methodology currently
not defined, R&D still needed
(Candidate indicator)
Litter ingested by marine animals
Plastic particles in stomachs of fulmars
(Common indicator for the North Sea)
Microplastics in water
column (sediment also
considered)
(Candidate Indicator)
-
It should be noticed that OSPAR is considering plastic particles in stomachs of fulmars to be an indicator for both floating litter and impact on
biota in the North Sea area. In addition, both OSPAR and HELCOM are
considering other target species/impact on biota indicators than plastic
particles in stomachs of fulmars, so this GES indicator also can be assessed
in other sea areas than the North Sea, North Atlantic and the Arctic.
The overall target for the MSFD indicators for GES has been defined
as “decreasing trends in amounts of litter items”. OSPAR has in addition,
also proposed a more specific target for marine litter in biota, as the
Ecological Quality Objective (EcoQO) based on weight of plastic in stomach of sea bird fulmars (OSPAR 2012, OSPAR 2014b).
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
23
Regarding defining baselines and assessments of temporal trends, it
has been proposed to use running 6 years average on the relevant marine litter indicators by OSPAR and HELCOM (T. Maes & J. Mouat, pers.
comm., HELCOM CORESET 2014b).
National authorities of EU countries are still in the process of providing
more concrete developments and implementation for the specific indicators
and targets for marine litter implementation of the MSFD descriptor 10 and
the establishment of appropriate monitoring strategies and management
plans and measures, which also need regional adjustments.
The development of initial assessments for MSFD by each EU member state in 2012 and corresponding national assessments by some
none-EU member states, e.g. Norway, has been one of the first steps in
this process. Secondly, most Nordic countries have in 2014 described
their plans for monitoring different marine litter indicators in the coming years, see Chapter 4.
During the last couple of years, monitoring activities and several recent
studies, also in Nordic waters, have provided new knowledge on the
amount, composition and spatial distribution of marine litter in the sea.
The ongoing and future studies will also provide new information in the
coming years. Therefore there is still a need for compiling current
knowledge and experience about the occurrence, fate and impact of marine litter and methodologies for improving environmental monitoring
and assessments in our region.
24
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
1. Overview of studies on
macro-litter indicators with
emphasis toward findings in
the Nordic countries
One of the clearly visible signs of litter in the marine environment that
first comes to mind is the macro-litter items washed ashore from the sea
and deposited on the shore lines. Fishermen working at sea will often
also often recognise macro-litter items when garbage appears in their
net after trawling in the water column or on the sea floor. Evidence of
the widespread marine pollution with macro-litter will also appear in
many other contexts like in surveys for maintenance of constructions
and pipelines along the sea floor or in studies on stomach contents in
marine wildlife like fish, seabirds or mammals.
Subsequently, different data sources for the marine litter indicators
have potential to be used for describing amounts, composition, spatial
distribution and temporal trends of macro-litter in the sea.
1.1 Beach litter
Registration of amounts and composition of marine litter washed ashore
on beaches has been performed in almost all Nordic countries, either as
part of systematic monitoring activities or as part of less consistent
coastal clean-up activities organised by for instance local communities
or NGOs. The data from these campaigns are often based on total
amounts of marine litter items as e.g. total weight or number of waste
bags filled. Results of such clean-up activities have the potential to be
used to support indicators to detect changes resulting from management
actions combatting litter in the marine environment
A more consistent monitoring with more detailed registration of
amounts and composition of marine litter items on reference beaches is
required if trends should be adequately assessed. Such monitoring activities were initiated in the North Sea and Skagerrak in Sweden, Denmark
and Faroe Islands in 2001–2002 as part of the EU funded project called
“Save the North Sea”. Comparable guidelines for both 100 m stretches
and/or 1 km stretches have been followed for registration of amounts
and composition of marine litter items, which corresponds to the OSPAR
guidelines for monitoring marine litter on the beaches (OSPAR 2010).
Sweden and to a minor extent Denmark has continued monitoring at
these reference beaches on a yearly basis and up to 3 times per year, and
data have been reported to the OSPAR Beach Litter Database
(http://www.mcsuk.org/ospar/). Norway has also recently reported
data for marine litter from beaches in the North Sea/Skagerrak region as
well as from the Arctic (OSPAR database 2014).
In the Baltic Sea, several beaches from Sweden, Finland and other Baltic states have been systematically monitored in 2012 - 2014 as part of the
EU-funded project called “MARLIN” (http://www.projectmarlin.eu/). The
monitoring was done according to the UNEP guidelines on survey and
monitoring of marine litter (UNEP 2009), although adapted to Baltic Sea
conditions (HSR 2014).
When comparing regional median-values for the Nordic monitoring
data in the OSPAR database with the MARLIN data from the Baltic Sea, a
clear tendency on the differences between the different marine regions
can be seen (Figure 2.1). The highest numbers of beached litter items are
generally found on 100 m stretches of coastlines occurring in the Skagerrak region followed by the eastern North Sea, supporting the fact that
this region is an important sink for marine litter from the southern
North Sea. The lowest levels are generally found on beaches in the Baltic
Sea followed by beaches in the Arctic and the North Atlantic. However,
some very high numbers of marine litter items can also be found at some
beaches in the Arctic, especially at Svalbard, supporting observations
that huge amounts of marine litter are transported with ocean currents
towards this region, and that local hydrographic conditions can reveal a
high deposition of marine litter on some Arctic shorelines.
26
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
Figure 2.1. Regional comparison of number of beached litter items found on 100
m streches of coastlines show that the largest amounts in Nordic waters generally occur at the Swedish and Danish west coasts (Based on OSPAR + MARLIN data
2002–2012).The figure shows box whisker plots with median, 10th, 90th, minimum and maximum-values per region on a logarithmic scale. The red dotted line
connects the regional median values
Regarding the composition of the marine litter items found on the Nordic beaches, some tendencies in regional differences can also be found
using the general OSPAR categories for grouping marine litter items
(Figure 2.2). By comparing the regional median-values it seems that the
contribution of plastic/polystyrene items increases from the Baltic Sea
(62%) to Skagerrak (76%) and the eastern North Sea (71%) and further
more towards the North Atlantic (88%) and the Arctic (97%), that may
indicate that especially plastic items will be transported over long distances with ocean currents. The regional patterns relating to the contribution from the other categories for marine litter items are more comparable although there are a few exceptions. Solid pollution, mainly as
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
27
wax, is more frequently occurring in the North Sea, probably due to intense shipping traffic and/or offshore activities. Sanitary waste is more
frequently occurring in the Skagerrak, especially at one Danish station,
indicating poor handling of waste water in that particular area, but it
should also be noticed that these findings are from 2003–2005, i.e. they
are not recent observations.
Figure 2.2. Regional comparisons of the amounts and composition of marine
litter items found on 100 m stretches of coastlines show that plastic/polystyrene
items are the dominant contributor to litter in all parts of the Nordic waters
NO3
NO6
NO2
NO4
DK2
NO7
NO5
DK4
SE9
SE1
DK1
The Nordic monitoring stations are shown as circles with different colours for each Nordic country,
i.e. Denmark (blue), Swedish west coast (red), Swedish east coast (green), Norway (orange) and
Finland (grey).
Based on OSPAR + MARLIN data 2002–2012, where MARLIN data has been translated to the general
OSPAR categories using the EU master list.
Recently, EUs Environmental Agency (EEA) has developed a mobile app
called “Marine Litter Watch” for collecting data on marine litter on
beaches relevant for the MSFD to support official monitoring (EEA
28
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
2014). This is in line with EU Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in
European Seas (EU 2013). This mobile app facilitates the collection of
data with the help of interested citizens and communities for instance
from clean-up operations as well as from more systematic monitoring
activities. In 2014, there has been reported marine litter data from several beaches in the Nordic countries including Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Iceland. However, it is not fully clear to what extent the sampling and registration of all the Nordic data in the EEA database are performed in agreement with EUs recommended monitoring guidelines,
because much of the data has been generated from NGO-led beach clean
ups, where the main objective has been to raise public awareness for
problems related to marine litter.
It is worth mentioning that although these methodologies for collecting and registration of marine litter items described in the OSPAR, UNEP
or EU guidelines are quite similar, there are also some minor discrepancies to be aware of, for instance:
• The number of sampling campaigns during the year may vary,
although preferably 4 times per year are recommended according to
the international guidelines from UNEP (2009), OSPAR (2010), and
EU (2013). In most Nordic countries sampling cannot be performed
during winter and therefore 3 times per year is generally accepted.
• The length of the segment of the coastline to be sampled can vary:
The normal range is 100 m stretches for collecting litter >2.5 cm,
although at some beaches 1 km stretches are additionally monitored
with collection of litter >50 cm. It should also be noticed that the
length of monitored stretches can vary for data reported using EEAs
app “Marine Litter Watch”, since the length from start to end is
determined by the use of GPS positioning.
• The type of beaches to be sampled can vary. The OSPAR guidelines
recommend monitoring at only so-called reference beaches with
minor impact of human beach activities, whereas UNEP and EU
guidelines (defines) recommends that monitoring is carried out at A)
Urban coasts (i.e. mostly terrestrial inputs), B) Rural coasts (i.e.
mostly oceanic inputs) and C) Coasts within close distance to major
riverine inputs.
• Categorizations of different types of marine litter items may differ
between guidelines used. The OSPAR and UNEP guidelines have
originally developed their own lists for identification and registration
of marine litter items, and subsequently resulting in some minor
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
29
discrepancies between the categories defined. Recently, EU has
developed a Master list of categories of litter items (EU 2013), which
include codes from both the OSPAR and UNEP lists as well as few
additional codes. The Master List includes also corresponding codes
from the OSPAR and UNEP lists, when applicable. The indicator items
such as those used in the OSPAR, UNEP or in the Master List for codes
on different marine litter categories can to some extent be linked to
potential sources and pathways, e.g. fishery, sanitary waste, industry
or public littering.
An overview of the Nordic surveys with more systematic and consistent
monitoring data on beach litter, i.e. from the OSPAR database and the
MARLIN project in the Baltic Sea, is given in Table 2.1 together public
clean-up activities with data mentioned in the reports for the initial
MSFD assessments from Denmark (NST 2012) and Sweden (SwAM
2012) or in the national report on status for marine litter in Norway
(KLIF 2011).
Table 2.1. List of Nordic surveys on beach litter with data available in the OSPAR
database, MARLIN project in the Baltic Sea or surveys with data from public
clean up activities mentioned in the reports for the initial MSFD assessments
from Denmark (NST 2012) and Sweden (SwAM 2012) or in the national report on
status for marine litter in Norway (KLIF 2011)
Type, Method
Sea region
Country
Years
References
Beach litter
surveys
NA, SK, NS
NO
2011–2012
OSPAR database
(2014), KLIF (2011)
SK
SE
2001–2012
OSPAR database
(2014), SwAM (2012)
NA
FO
2002–2006
OSPAR database (2014)
NS, SK
DK
2002–2012
OSPAR database
(2014), NST (2012)
BS
SE, FI
2012–2014
MARLIN (2014)
BS, SK
SE
2010–2011
(Stada Sverige)
SwAM (2012)
NA
NO
1979–2010
(Sør-Trøndelag)
KLIF (2011)
Sea regions: Baltic Sea (BS), Skagerrak–Kattegat (SK), North Sea (NS), North Atlantic and Artic (NA).
Countries: Denmark (DK), Norway (NO), Faroe Islands (FO), Finland (FI), Sweden (SE).
30
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
1.2 Macro-litter on the seafloor
There have in the Nordic countries been performed different types of activities regarding marine macro-litter on the sea-floor. Some data exist for
bottom trawl catches, e.g. by registration of fishermen’s catches “Fishing
for litter” and registration from bottom trawl surveys for stock assessments of demersal fish species in the Baltic Sea (BITS) or in the North Sea
and North Atlantic (IBTS). Some Nordic data also exist from analyses of
ROV/video observations and retrieval of lost fishing gear.
Especially the registration of marine litter items from bottom trawl
surveys for fish stock assessments (IBTS/BITS) seems to have potential as
a methodology for providing more systematic and consistent monitoring
of amounts, composition and trends of litter on the sea floor since an internationally coordinated monitoring of fish populations is carried out
twice per year in the North Sea and Baltic Sea. Among other sampling
gears, these surveys utilize bottom trawls that are designed for monitoring of young fish and are therefore relatively fine meshed (16 mm mesh).
While these trawls are able to effectively catch mainly larger specimens of
litter, smaller fragments are likely to pass through the trawl and there are
no systematic surveys in place to monitor small litter fragments and micro-litter. Non-fish/shellfish catches in Danish and Swedish surveys have
been registered since 2010 using a range of broad categories: plastic, metal, glass, stone and wood, and other anthropogenic litter (DTU Aqua, personal com., NST, 2012, SwAM 2012). Litter data from IBTS and BITS surveys have been provided for both the Baltic Sea and the North Sea. Collection of data from scientific research vessels has intensified in recent years
throughout Europe. More recently, the IBTS survey has adopted a new set
of litter monitoring categories which initially have been developed by
OSPAR and the MSFD Technical Subgroup for marine litter. These categories will also be applied in future in the Baltic BITS surveys. Although
there are differences between the BITS and IBTS surveys in relation to
sampling, these surveys together cover large areas in the Nordic region
and may provide one of the few platforms for consistent sampling of litter
on the sea floor. Alternatively, ROV transects can also be used in some
areas. “Fishing for litter” and retrieval of lost fishing gear probably have
more potential for use in connection with response indicators for actions,
i.e. activities dealing with removal of litter from the sea.
Several Nordic countries have also been involved in “fishing for litter
activities” coordinated by the Local Authorities International Environmental Organisation or Kommunernes Internasjonale Miljøorganisasjon
(KIMO), which was founded by local coastal municipalities with a shared
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
31
concern for the state of the environment. KIMO coordinates a number of
“Fishing for Litter” projects that aim to reduce marine litter by involving
the fishing industry. KIMO directly provides fishing boats with large
bags to deposit the litter caught by fishers. Once the bags are full they
can be deposited in participating ports, where litter is collected for disposal. KIMO Fishing for Litter projects operate in Scotland, SW England,
Netherlands, Belgium, Isle of Man and the Faroes, with more than 40
ports and 400 boats (mostly bottom trawlers) involved. By 2013 the
combined projects had removed more than 3,500 tonnes of litter from
the sea during the years. From 2012 this also includes activities on “fishing for litter” in the Baltic Sea together with fishermen from three harbours on Swedish coastline (KIMO 2013). In Norway, plans for initiation
of “fishing for litter” activities in cooperation with fishermen and harbours have also been considered (Fiskebåt 2012).
In Norway, other types of data for marine litter on the sea floor have
been generated during many years by the registration of retrieval of
derelict fishing gears (or gear components) that have been intentionally
(dumping) or unintentionally (storms, collisions between gears, etc.)
lost at sea. The Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries (Fiskeridirektoratet)
has since 1983 registered annual amounts of retrieved fishing gear during clean-up operations at coastal fishing grounds. The registration includes retrieved gillnets, rope, fishing line, trawl wire, and other fishery
related items (KLIF 2011, Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries 2013).
Surveys are guided by information from fishers regarding the depths
and locations where nets or other fishing gear were lost. The annual
amount of gill nets retrieved in Norway during the period from 1983 to
2010 is shown in Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3. Annual number of retrieval of lost gill nets in Norway in the period
from 1983 to 2010
Figure copied from KLIF, 2011.
32
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
Additionally there also exist video surveillance data of transects along five
pipe-lines in the North Sea and the North Atlantic in the period from 1985
to 2009. These surveys showed that fishing nets, together with soft and
hard garbage are the dominating litter types at all the five transects. However, it is also recognised that the smaller litter is not registered and the
fishing gear is overrepresented as it can be caught within the pipe-line
structures. Thus data from these surveys are not providing the complete
description of the litter contamination of the region (KLIF 2011).
Another survey with several years of data for sea floor litter has been
performed from the HAUSGARTEN observatory in the deep-sea, which is
situated in Norwegian waters at the eastern Fram Strait west of Svalbard. HAUSGARTEN comprises of nine stations along a bathymetric gradient which is crossed by a latitudinal transect of currently eight stations
at the depth of about 2,500 m. Image analyses revealed that the amount
of litter items was within the range of 728–7,710 items/km2 in the period of 2002–2011, where the majority of items (59%) was identified as
plastic materials (Bergmann & Klages 2012).
In Denmark, some surveys with video sequences used for mapping
benthic habitats in the North Sea, Kattegat, the Belt Sea, and the Baltic
Sea have also been analysed for the presence of marine litter. The results
showed that marine litter only rarely could be observed in the video
sequences. Ghost nets and other types of lost fishing gear were, however, often observed entangled on ship wrecks. It was concluded that the
surveys indicated that marine litter not could be regarded as a general
problem for all benthic habitats, but rather a problem in certain accumulation areas (NST 2012).
An overview of some relevant surveys on marine litter on sea floor in
the Nordic waters is given in Table 2.2.
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
33
Table 2.2. List of some Nordic studies on marine litter on sea floor with surveys mentioned in the
reports for the initial MSFD assessments from Denmark (NST 2012) and Sweden (SwAM 2012) or
in the national report on status for marine litter in Norway (KLIF 2011)
Type, Method
Sea region
Country
Year(s)
Reference
Bottom-trawl
(BITS/IBTS)
BS, SK
K
2010–2011
NST (2012)
Bottom-trawl
(BITS/IBTS)
BS, SK
SE
2010–2011
SwAM (2012)
Retrieval of lost
fishing gear
NA
NO
1983–2013
KLIF (2011), Norwegian
Direct. of Fisheries (2013)
“Fishing for Litter”
BS, NS
DK, FO, SE
2002–2012
KIMO (2004–2013)
ROV/video at
pipelines
NS
NO
1985–2009
KLIF (2011)
ROV/video, benthic
habitats
NS, SK
DK
2011
NST (2012)
ROV/video, deep
sea, Hausgarten
NA
NO
2002–2011
Bergmann & Klages
(2012)
Sea regions: Baltic Sea (BS), Skagerrak–Kattegat (SK), North Sea (NS), North Atlantic and Artic (NA).
Countries: Denmark (DK), Norway (NO), Faroe Islands (FO), Finland (FI), Sweden (SE).
1.3 Macro-litter floating in the water column
To our knowledge no reported Nordic surveys exist on amounts and
composition of floating macro-litter sampled directly from surface water
layers or from deeper parts of the water column. According to Galgani et
al. (2013), registration of floating macro-litter could be performed with
either visual observation from e.g. vessel or aerial surveys or by automated camera surveys. Recently, OSPAR has suggested that plastic ingestion by seabirds, like fulmar, also could be used as indicator for floating litter, but in this report plastic ingestion by seabirds is described
under uptake and impact of macro-litter in biota.
1.4 Ingestion and impact of macro-litter in biota
There exists some information on the ingestion and the impact of macrolitter in marine wildlife from the Nordic waters and especially for seabirds. In the Nordic countries, there seem only to be very scarce data on
ingestion or impact of macro-litter on marine fish and invertebrates and
to our current knowledge there has not been reported Nordic data for
marine mammals.
34
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
1.4.1
Seabirds
Like in other North Sea countries, most attention has been given to plastic ingestion by the sea-bird northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) in the
Nordic parts of the Skagerrak, the North Sea, the North Atlantic, and the
Arctic waters, but not from the Kattegat where this species is less abundant or from the Baltic Sea, where it only occurs very rarely.
This is also one of the marine litter indicators recommended by
OSPAR for the North Atlantic (OSPAR 2012). Northern fulmar has been
identified as a good and sensitive indicator species for uptake of marine
litter in biota, because this species like other procellariid seabirds forages exclusively at sea, frequently ingests floating litter from the sea surface, and has a high abundance and widespread distribution in the North
Atlantic and Arctic (van Franeker et al. 2011).
Figure 2.4. Northern fulmar is a sensitive and suitable indicator for uptake of
marine litter in biota, because of an increased risk for ingesting plastic litter at
sea, probably due to their feeding strategy collecting items from surface waters
Photo: David Boertmann, North Atlantic 2011.
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
35
During the early 1980s a long-term monitoring of plastic ingestion by
northern fulmars was started in the Netherlands, and from the mid–1990s
this was established as an annual program (van Franeker et al. 2011a).
This resulted in the expansion of the Dutch research program to include
all other North Sea countries including the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Sweden,
Norway, and Denmark. The results from the North Sea and Skagerrak
from 2002–2011, showed that the majority of the examined fulmars contained plastic litter in the stomachs (van Franeker et al. 2011a, OSPAR
2013). Of the, 1295 fulmars sampled in the period 2002–2007 95% had
plastic in the stomach (on average 35 pieces weighing 0.31 g) with some
regional variations (van Franeker et al. 2011a) and no significant decrease
in plastic particles in fulmar stomachs has been detected over the last
decade (OSPAR 2014).
Because of the high spatial coverage data from the North Sea and the
potential level of biological impact, monitoring of plastics in fulmar stomachs has become one of the so-called “Ecological Quality Objectives”
(EcoQOs) set by the OSPAR for the North-East Atlantic region (OSPAR,
2008, van Franeker et al. 2011a,b). According to van Franeker et al.
(2011a), “the preliminary EcoQO defines acceptable ecological quality as
the situation where no more than 10% of fulmars exceed a critical level of
0.1 g of plastic in the stomach”. The EcoQO is now also proposed by WGGES as an indicator for Good Environmental Status (GES) relevant for the
MSFD (Galgani et al. 2013). In these studies the plastics are divided into
different categories, the two dominating ones being: industrial plastics
(the raw granular feedstock for producers) and user plastics (from all
sorts of consumer waste) (van Franeker 2013).
Regarding the results from the Nordic countries, 49–69% birds from
Skagerrak, and 44% of birds from Faroe Islands exceeded the EcoQOs
limit of the 0.1 g. In comparison, data from the later Icelandic study from
2011 showed that 28% of examined birds from North Atlantic waters
exceeded this level. The Icelandic results support the hypothesis put
forward by van Franeker in 1985 that the amount of plastic in fulmar
stomachs decreased with higher latitudes in the Atlantic (Kühn & van
Franeker, 2012). This was also indicated in study on inter colony comparisons in the Canadian part of Arctic (Provencher et al. 2009).
36
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
The OSPAR data on plastic contents in fulmar stomachs in different
parts of the North-East Atlantic from the period 2002–2011 has almost
all been provided by IMARES from the Netherlands. The OSPAR data
have for now been made available only as summary data for different
regional seas in the OSPAR region that include Nordic data as part of
data for Skagerrak and Faroe Islands (van Franker et al 2011, OSPAR
2013). Data for one survey in Iceland in 2011 has also been published
(Kühn & van Franeker 2012). However, after 2011 a continuation of the
fulmar activities will have to rely on national contributions that can imply national research, but could also be conducted centrally and at least
requires associated centralized funding to support international coordination and integration (van Franeker pers. comm).
Among the Nordic countries, Norway is the only country that has initiated national surveys on fulmar stomachs as a marine litter indicator.
Fulmars found dead during winter time on the Norwegian North Sea
coast in the Lista and Rogaland areas have over the period 2002/2003 to
2012/2013 been examined for plastic ingestion. The running 5-year average levels for the last years in the period show that approximately 65% of
the birds contained >0.1 g plastic, i.e. above OSPARs EcoQO (Figure 2.5).
Preliminary results from the northern Norway, shows for comparison that
about 34% of the fulmars caught accidentally during fishery for Greenlandic
halibut contained >0.1 g plastic (Anker–Nilssen 2014).
Preliminary results from another Norwegian study in 2013–2014 on
fulmars from Svalbard in the high Arctic show that up to 88% of the 40
examined fulmars had ingested plastic, averaging at 0.08 g or 15.3 pieces
per individual, where 22.5% exceeded OSPARs EcoQO (Trevail et al.
2014). An older unpublished study on fulmars from Svalbard in 1984 had
for comparison previously found that approximately 30% of the examined
fulmars had ingested plastic (Gabrielsen 2013). Thus the elevated levels of
plastic ingestion in fulmars from Svalbard highlight the need for mitigation of plastic pollution, and also in the Arctic (Trevail et al. 2014).
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
37
Proportion of fulmars with
stomach contents on >0.1g plastic
Figure 2.5. Proportion of northern fulmars with more than 0.1 g plastic in the stomach that have been collected during winter time at North Sea coasts in Norway
Anker–Nilssen, 2014.
Only a limited amount of studies have reported higher incidences of
plastic ingestion in other species than the procellarid seabirds like fulmars – and also albatrosses, shearwaters etc. from other sea regions.
However, one study with necropsy examinations on the auk thick-billed
murre (Uria lomvia) from Southwest Greenland in 1988–1989 found
that 6% of 202 birds contained plastic in their stomachs (Falk & Durinck
1993, Provencher et al. 2014) indicating that auks also may also be a
potential indicator for plastic ingestion in seabirds.
Only scarce data can be found regarding the issue of entanglement of
seabirds in marine litter such as derelict gill nets, ropes, and trawl wires
in the Nordic countries. Among seabirds, especially the Northern gannet
(Morus bassanus) seems to be susceptible to marine litter, although no
consistent registration has been performed of this in the Nordic waters.
Gannet remains the species most frequently found entangled among all
beached birds in the Dutch and German part of the southern North Sea.
5–20% of the gannets, often found when dead, have been reported as
entangled since surveys started in the 1980s and until today (Fleet et al.
2009). Some observations of gannet entangled in pieces of rope have
also been made at e.g. the Danish North Sea and Skagerrak coasts, where
gannets can forage in large numbers (Strand, unpubl.). As well as being
mistaken for food, plastics are also used as nesting material by some
seabirds. For instance, over 90% of the 30,000 gannet nests on Grass-
38
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
holm Island (in UK) contained plastic (OSPAR 2009). This indicates the
extent of plastic pollution in surrounding waters, as gannets collect almost all of their nest material at sea.
Figure 2.6. Seabirds like northern gannet often collect and carry plastic litter to
be used as nest material in colonies in the North Sea and the North Atlantic
Photo: Søren Kristensen, Denmark 2012.
Other seabirds are also collecting marine litter as nest material. For instance, studies of the nesting material used by the sea-bird kittiwake
(Rissa tridactyla) have been carried out by quantifying the percentage of
nests containing plastic litter. A study on a kittiwake colony in NorthWest-Denmark visited in both 1992 and 2005 found that 39% of the 466
nests analysed in 1992 contained plastic, whereas 57% out of 311 nests
contained plastic in 2005 (Hartwig et al. 2005).
1.4.2
Marine fish and invertebrates
From the Nordic countries there is very little data on ingestion of or
impact of macro-litter on marine fish and invertebrates. However, there
is information on the entanglement of fish caught by derelict fishing gear
retrieved during clean-up operations at the coastal fishing grounds in
Norway. For instance in 2011, 14,000 kg fish and 12,000 crabs were
registered from 1,100 derelict gill-nets and 54 crab-traps (Norwegian
Directorate of Fisheries 2011). Other observations have also been reported, e.g. mackerel entangled in elastic band (Norden Andersen 1978).
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
39
From our neighbouring countries some information is available on
that plastic fragments have also been observed in the digestive tract of
fish. For instance ingestion of pieces of plastic have been observed in a
number of twaite shad (Alosa fallax) collected in some Baltic Sea estuaries like Gulf of Gdansk (Skóra et al. 2012). Similar observations have also
been made for cod (Gadus morhua) from the German part of the North
Sea and the Baltic Sea during examination of stomach contents for food
items (Fricke N., pers. comm.).
An overview of some relevant studies on marine litter in relation to
biota from the Nordic waters is given in Table 2.3.
Table 2.3. List of some Nordic studies on uptake and impact of marine litter in biota
Type, Method
Sea region
Country
Year(s)
Reference
Litter in Fulmar
NS, SK, NA
DK/NO/SE,
FO
2002–2011
Van Franeker, 2011; OSPAR
2014
Litter in Fulmar
NS, NA
NO
2003–2013
Anker–Nilssen, 2014
Litter in Fulmar
NA
NO
2013–2014
Trevail, pers. comm.
Litter in Fulmar
NA
IS
2011
Kühn & van Franeker, 2012
Litter in
Thick-billed murre
NA
GL
1988–1989
Falk & Durinck, 1993
Entanglement of
Northern gannet
No systematic registration, only observations
Litter in nests of
Kittiwake
NS
DK
1992–2005
Hartwig et al. 2007
Entanglement of fish
and craps in ghost nets
NA
NO
19xx–2011
Norwegian Directorate of
Fisheries, 2011
Sea regions: Baltic Sea (BS), Skagerrak–Kattegat (SK), North Sea (NS), North Atlantic and Artic (NA).
Countries: Denmark (DK), Norway (NO), Faroe Islands (FO), Iceland (Is), Finland (FI), Greenland (Gr),
Sweden (SE).
40
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
2. Overview of studies on
micro-litter indicators with
emphasis on findings in the
Nordic countries
Marine micro-litter has received much public and scientific attention over
the past decade, and the possible consequences it may have on marine
ecosystems have been thoroughly described in reports and scientific articles. Still, the number of field studies on the actual amounts, composition
and impact of micro-litter in the marine environment are surprisingly few
in relation to the attention the problem has been given. In an extensive
review on marine microplastic (an important fraction of micro-litter) in
general and in Dutch coastal waters in particular, this was also one of the
conclusions for the North Sea region (Leslie et al. 2011).
“Micro-litter” comprises a diverse group of particulate materials originating from human activities that besides different kinds of plastic, also
includes e.g. non-synthetic textile fibres and road dust. It could hence be
expected that the fate of particles made up of these various materials is
equally diverse as factors like density, size and shape affect distribution
and residence times of microscopic particles in different parts of the
marine environment.
Micro-litter particles occur, just like macro-litter, in almost all parts
of the marine environment, but the relative distribution of particles between the different ecosystem compartments (e.g. surface and deeper
water layers, tidal and subtidal sediments, different organisms etc.) is
still unknown.
Micro-litter occurs as:
• Floating in surface waters and in deeper parts of the water column.
• Deposited in subtidal, tidal sediments and on shorelines.
• Taken up by marine organisms.
Microplastic can be divided into two overall groups, primary (engineered
particles) or secondary microplastic (fragments of macroplastic litter). Of
these, secondary plastic is expected to be the most common microplastic
in the sea (Leslie et al. 2011). This is because secondary microplastic can
originate from fragmentation/degradation of macro-litter from various
sea- and land-based sources, whereas the sources to primary microplastic
are more restricted to their uses in e.g. personal care products (mainly
from households), industrial scrubs and sandblasting products, and industrial production where plastic (resin) pellets are used as raw material for
production of various macroplastic items.
There is still limited knowledge of the contribution of different sources
of microplastic particles in the sea, and also in the Nordic countries. Recently, studies in Finland and Sweden on effluents from waste water
treatment plants (WWTPs) have indicated that they can be a significant
source of microlitter in the aquatic environments. For instance, concentrations of microplastic of 7,000–30,000 particles (>300 µm) and 60,000–
80,000 particles (>20 µm) per cubic meter were found in inlet water from
three different WWTPs in Sweden (Magnusson & Wahlberg 2014). Although the main part (70–100%) of the microplastic particles was maintained inside the WWTPs, outlet water, i.e. the effluent going into the receiving aquatic environments, still contained considerable amounts of
microplastic with 1–100 particles (>300 µm) and 1000–10000 particles
(>20 µm) per cubic meter (Magnusson & Wahlberg 2014).
The most basic identification of marine micro-litter in the laboratory
is done with stereo microscopy, where micro-litter particles at first can
be grouped into four categories according to their shapes, i.e. as granules, flakes, spherules and fibres (Figure 3.1). Stereo microscopy may
not always be enough to distinguish between plastic and other anthropogenic materials, e.g. non-synthetic textile fibres, and in these cases the
plastic particles potential to melt when heated may be used for identification (Magnusson & Wahlberg 2014). To distinguish between different
kinds of the plastic material and identify specific types of polymer, analysis with Fourier Transform infrared (FT-IR) or RAMAN spectroscopy is
required. These methods are however rather expensive and time consuming and can in practice only be performed on a limited number of
particles in a study.
42
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
Figure 3.1. Examples of different types of microplastic particle, i.e. granules,
flakes, spherules and fibres, found in sediments from Danish waters
Photo: Jakob Strand.
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
43
There is no general consensus about a specific size nomenclature although
it has been suggested that microplastics should be defined as particles <5
mm (Hidalgo–Ruz et al. 2012). This is also the upper size limit recommended by the working group dealing with good environmental status under the
MSFD (WG-GES) (Galagani et al. 2013). The lower size limit is highly dependent on the sampling methods and therefore varies considerably between published studies. As a consequence of this, WG-GES assess that the
tools for creating a harmonized protocol for quantifying microplastic particles in all environmental matrices still has a low level of maturity and need
to be further developed (Galgani et al. 2013). However, there is a definite
need for a size definition when monitoring microplastics so that results over
periods of time and from different geographical areas may be compared.
2.1 Microplastic in the water column
Studies in the western North Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean Sea
showed that the concentration of microplastic particles >0.3 µm in surface
water had not increased between the years 1986 and 2008, in spite of a
significant increase in global plastic use over the same period of time (Law
et al. 2010). This implies that many plastic particles spend a limited time
in the water column. In shallow areas close to the coast, the amount of
micro-litter in the water column seem to depend strongly on weather
conditions and concentrations increase after storm events (Lattin et al.
2004). Considering this risk for large temporal variations in field data,
microplastic concentrations in the water column must be interpreted with
caution. Also, the efficiencies of the sampling methods presently used are
still not well investigated and comparisons between different methods are
few, which further complicates the interpretation.
Most sampling of micro-litter in the water column has been done by
trawling with plankton net or by pumping water through a filter. Filtering
the research vessel’s continuous water intake for microplastic particles is
another potentially method currently studied by DTU Aqua in Denmark in
connection to an eel survey extending from the Danish coast to the Sargasso
Sea and back (Sørensen, pers.com.). The Technical Subgroup on Marine
Litter (TSG ML) has indicated that they may recommend that monitoring of
marine micro-litter should be done on surface water and carried out with a
Manta trawl with a 333 µm mesh. The Manta trawl is specifically designed
to sample in the upper 0.5 m of the water column (EU 2013).
In a study of stations along the Swedish coast line, from the west
coast close to the Norwegian border to the southern Bothnian Sea, the
44
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
number of plastic fragments in the water surface, sampled by pumping
water through a 300 µm filter, amounted to ~1 particle m-3, and the
number of non-synthetic fibres (e.g. cotton) was slightly higher than
synthetic fragments (Magnusson & Norén, 2011). In a study from the
Gulf of Finland particles >333 µm were collected with Manta-trawl and
the number of plastic particles was found to vary between 0 and
0.7 particles m-3 at the different sampling stations (Magnusson 2014).
Figure 3.1. Microplastic concentrations >330 µm in surface water sampled with
manta-trawl in Rauma and Turku in Finland in 2013
Magnusson, 2014b.
Studies on microplastics in sea water have also been performed for instance in the British part of the North Sea and North Atlantic using Continuous Plankton Recorder (CPR) and Manta trawl (Galgani et al. 2011).
When analysing samples from the CPR from the 1990s the microplastics
concentration in the British part of the North Sea and North Atlantic
were found to be on average 0.03 items m-3 (Thompson et al. 2004). It is
however difficult to compare these figures with results from studies by
Magnusson and Norén (2011) and Magnusson (2014), since different
sampling methods were used.
Several field studies of surface water around the Swedish coast line
and in the Gulf of Finland have revealed that the microplastic fraction of
micro-litter is dominated by plastic fibres and that the number of plastic
particles of any other shape is fairly low (Norén 2010, Magnusson &
Norén 2011, Magnusson 2014b). The diameter of most fibres were
<<300 µm, which means that whether or not they were collected depended on what direction the fibers had when hitting the trawl net or
filter where mesh sizes were 330 and 300 µm, respectively. It is hence
important to keep in mind that all data coming from sampling based on
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
45
filtering water actually shows the number of micro-litter particles retained on filters with 300 µm mesh size (or whatever mesh size that has
been applied), rather than “micro-litter particles >300 µm”. Also, it cannot be excluded that when there are large amounts of biological material
in the water, anthropogenic fibres get entangled and a larger fraction is
retained in the trawl or on the filter, whereas in samples with less biological material more anthropogenic fibres pass through the mesh of the
sampling device.
The large dominance of plastic fibres in Nordic surface waters is in
contrast to findings in e.g. the North American Great Lakes, where plastic microspheres were much more common (Eriksen et al. 2013).
2.2 Microplastics on the beaches and in sub-tidal
sediments
Most methods used to extract microplastics from sediments are based on
elutriation with high saline solutions and some methods also include a
digestion step to eliminate biological material (Johansson 2011, Claessens
et al. 2013, Strand et al. in prep.).
In an Icelandic study of twelve sandy beaches, situated along a gradient from the urban area around Reykjavik to more remote parts further
north, the occurrence of microplastic particles (1–5 mm) was found to
be more frequent at beaches in the urban area than in semi-rural ones
(Dippo 2012). At the rural beaches no microplastics was found. However, within the semi-rural areas the distribution between different beaches was very patchy, indicating that the effect of ocean currents is important. The same conclusion was drawn from a study from a remote
area on the North American west coast, Puget Sound, where the sediment was analysed for microplastics at twelve locations in each of three
bays and it was found that at one of these locations the microplastics
concentration was higher than the sum of the other eleven locations
(Gilman 2013). A study on distribution of microplastics on different
parts of a beach at the Danish North Sea coast showed that microplastic
particles were abundant. Microplastics occurred with densities ranging
from 112–2,480 particles kg-1 dry weight (DW) and with synthetic fibres
as the dominant fraction. The high variance between subsamples was
due to highly irregular distribution on the beaches. A vertical transect
from coast to upper zones of the beach showed the highest levels generally occur in the upper zones (Derksen et al. 2012).
46
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
Microplastic also occurs deposited on the sea floor in sub-tidal sediments. A Danish study on distribution of microplastic particles (38 µm – 1
mm) in sediments in a transect from the Baltic Sea towards the North Sea
found 60–3,600 particles kg-1 sediment DW and again with fibres as the
dominant fraction (Strand et al. in prep.). These levels were comparable
with findings in some of our neighbouring countries. For instance a Belgian study observed microplastic (38 µm – 1 mm) in concentrations between 50–400 microplastic particles kg-1 sediment DW in all sediments
sampled in gradients extending from large harbours and also at a some
more randomly selected beaches in the North Sea (Claessens et al. 2011).
The results from the Danish study also indicated that normalisation of
microplastic densities to adequate sediment characters can reduce the
variability caused by natural heterogeneity between samples and thereby
increase the power of identifying more or less affected areas. Strong relationships between the content of microplastic and both content of total
organic carbon (%TOC) and fine sediment fraction (<63µm) in sediments
were found throughout the area, supporting the theory that microplastic
will accumulate in sedimentary depositional areas – i.e. with parallels to
organic pollutants adsorbed to organic materials. Positive correlations
were also established to PAHs, alkylphenols and phthalates in sediments,
probably due to co-variation with sources and TOC (Strand et al. in prep.).
The fact that fibres are the dominating type of microplastic is similar to
the findings in the surface water along the Swedish coast and in the Gulf of
Finland (Magnusson and Norén 2011, Magnusson 2014b.).
A few Nordic studies have also put attention to pollution with paint
flakes from constructions or from ship hulls in harbours and their potential release of toxic chemicals like TBT and PCBs (Jartun et al. 2009,
Eklund et al, 2008). Strand et al. (in prep) also reported findings of microplastic flakes identified as acrylic paint in sediments from coastal
areas in Denmark, especially in areas with high densities of ships. Findings from Antarctica indicate also that paint flakes with toxic chemicals
from ship hulls can be an important issue in areas often covered by sea
ice, and especially in shipping lanes, where ice-breaking vessels cut
channels through sea ice (Negri & Marshall 2009). Such ice-breaking
activity also takes place in the Arctic and other parts of the Nordic waters through wintertime.
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
47
2.3 Microplastics in marine biota
Microplastic particles can be taken up by organisms at various levels within the food web. Due to their small size, microplastic particles may be ingested by low trophic fauna (Wright et al. 2013). Consumption of the prey
containing microplastic particles can be an indirect way for microplastic
ingestion by fish. Zooplankton, a prey item of many fish species and especially those mid-trophic level fish, upon which other larger fish feed, have
been shown to ingest microplastics (Cole et al. 2013). In an experimental
study it was shown that 10 µm styrene microparticles were ingested by
several Baltic Sea zooplankton taxa (mysid shrimps, copepods, cladocerans, rotifers, polychaete larvae and ciliates) and that the particles were
also transferred between trophic levels from meso- to macrozooplankton
(Setälä et al. 2014). To our knowledge there is however no reports on
microplastic in field sampled zooplankton from Nordic waters. Other experimental studies have also shown trophic transfer of microplastics e.g.
from mussels to crabs (Farrell & Nelson 2013).
In a study by Von Moos et al. (2012) polarized light microscopy was
used to investigate whether or not blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) ingested
fragments of microplastic ranging from >0–80 μm and whether these
fragments were taken up into the mussels cells and tissue. It was found
that microplastic particles did get drawn into the mussels gills and
transported onwards to the stomach digestive gland, where they accumulated in the lysosomal system, i.e. providing evidence that microplastic particles are taken up into cells. Observed histological changes
and a strong inflammatory response also confirmed that the particles
caused significant effects on the tissue and cellular level.
Some North Sea studies on field sampled benthic invertebrates like
mussels, polychaetes and crustaceans including shellfish for human consumption have also demonstrated uptake of microplastic (Van Cauwenberghe et al. 2012, Cauwenberghe & Jansen 2014).
The study of the gut contents of Norway lobster (Nephrops norwegicus)
collected in the Clyde Sea in Scotland revealed plastics in the stomachs of
83% of the sampled animals (Murray & Cowie 2011). In 62% of them,
filaments of fibres within the range of mm–cm (in length), were found as
tightly wound balls of plastic strands. Raman spectroscopy indicated that
some of these strands probably came from “chafer mats”, which are multistrand polypropylene rope fittings applied to fishing gears to protect
gears from abrasion. In addition to examining the ingested plastics of wild
Nephrops, Murray and Cowie (2011) also conducted experimental studies
where they fed pieces of fish containing strands of plastic rope to caged
48
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
animals. The plastic strands were found to be ingested by the Nephrops
but not excreted.
In a study of fish from the North Sea 1,200 individuals of seven common species were examined and microplastic particles (0.04–4.8 mm)
were found in 3% of the individuals and in five of the seven species
(Foekema et al. 2013). However, 80% of the individuals with plastics contained only one plastic item, suggesting that the particles did not accumulate in the fish gut for very long time. Another study from the English
Channel observed microplastic particles in 10 species of fish from the
English Channel. Of 504 examined fish the authors found plastics in the
gastrointestinal tracts of 37%. All of the ten studied species had ingested
plastics, including both pelagic and demersal fish species. Polyamide
(36%) and rayon (58%) were the types of plastic most commonly encountered (Foekema et al. 2013).
In the Nordic countries only few studies on occurrence of microplastic
in marine organisms have been carried out. For instance, fibre particles of
anthropogenic origin have been found in the faeces of sediment living
brittle stars and polychaetes from Gullmarsfjorden at the west coast of
Sweden. The field sampled specimens were kept in clean water to allow
them to purge their guts, and plastic fibres were detected in the faecal
material (Johansson 2011). Another study on blue mussels sampled at
two location in the vicinity of Copenhagen in Denmark found on average 1.2–2.5 particles per mussel corresponding to 0.6–1.5 microplastic
particles per gram wet weight (Agersnap 2013). The same study also
found microplastic in the gut of three fish species, i.e. eelpout (Zoarces
viviparus), cod (Gadus morhua) and sculpin (Myoxocephalus scorpius) with
on average 0.3–2.3 microplastic particles per fish.
Another fish study on 45 Herring (Clupea harengus) and 46 whiting
(Merlangius merlangus) from the Belt Sea in Denmark showed that 27–
31% of the fish contained 1–4 microplastic particles in their gut (Sørensen et al. 2013).
In all of the field studies, synthetic fibres have been assessed to be the
dominating fraction of microplastic taken up by the organisms, which is
in line with the findings of micro-litter in water column and sediments.
An overview of some relevant studies on micro-litter in water column,
sediments and biota from the Nordic waters is given in Table 2.4.
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
49
Table 2.4. List of some Nordic studies on micro-litter in water column, sediments and biota
Type, Method
Sea region
Country
Year(s)
Reference
Water column
SK, BS
SE
2007, 2010
Water column
Water column
Water column
Tidal sediment and beach sand
Tidal sediment and beach sand
Sub-tidal sediment
Sub-tidal sediment
Brittlestars, faeces
Mussels and fish
Fish
SK
BS
BS
NS
NA
BS, SK, NS
SK
SK
BS
BS
NO
FI
FI
DK
IS
DK
SE
SE
DK
DK
2010
2012
2013
2009–2010
2011
2012–2013
2010
2010
2013
2013
Norén, 2007;
Norén & Magnusson, 2011
Norén & Naustvoll 2011
Setälä, unpubl.
Magnusson, 2014
Derksen et al. 2012
Dippo, 2012
Strand et al. in prep.
Johansson, 2011
Johansson, 2011
Agersnap 2013
Sørensen et al. 2013
Sea regions: Baltic Sea (BS), Skagerrak–Kattegat (SK), North Sea (NS), North Atlantic and Artic (NA).
Countries: Denmark (DK), Norway (NO), Iceland (Is), Finland (FI), Greenland (Gr), Sweden (SE).
50
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
3. Status for management
actions on marine litter with
relevance for Nordic waters
3.1 Current status for implementing Marine Strategy
Framework Directive and national management
plans in the Nordic countries
The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) is currently the most
important European legislation concerning marine litter.
In addition to MSFD, three main goals for reducing the occurrence
and impact of marine litter have been adopted by the EU as part of the
Honolulu Strategy. The Honolulu Strategy is a framework established by
the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for comprehensive and
global effort to reduce the ecological, human health, and economic impacts of marine debris (UNEP & NOAA 2012). The three goals are:
• Goal A: Reduced amount and impact of land-based sources of marine
debris introduced into the sea.
• Goal B: Reduced amount and impact of sea-based sources of marine
debris including solid waste, lost cargo, abandoned, lost or otherwise
discarded fishing gear (ALDFG), and abandoned vessels introduced
into the sea.
• Goal C: Reduced amount and impact of accumulated marine debris on
shorelines, in benthic habitats, and in pelagic waters.
The Nordic countries consist of Denmark (including Greenland and the
Faroe Islands), Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland. Denmark, Sweden,
and Finland are members of EU whereas Norway and Iceland are not.
Greenland and Faroe Islands are not members of EU, although they are
part of the kingdom of Denmark. Norway and Iceland have developed
national management plans for marine litter that are almost comparable
with the guidelines for the implementation of MSFD.
Implementation of MSFD must follow the time schedule below (Anon.
2008):
• 2012: Initial assessment of the current environmental status
completed.
• 2014: Monitoring programme established and implemented.
• 2015: Programme of measures to achieve or maintain GES developed.
• 2016: Programme of measures to achieve or maintain GES
implemented.
• 2020: GES achieved.
GES shall be determined on the basis of qualitative descriptors of which
marine litter is one of eleven. GES for marine litter is defined as “Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and
marine environment” (Anon. 2008). Marine litter is highlighted in the
MSFD as a significant pressure for which a monitoring programme has to
be established and measures have to be implemented. An outline for this
work is given in the Commission Decision on criteria and methodological
standards (Anon. 2010) that emphasises four indicators for marine litter
(see Table 1.1).
The current status of strategies and actions for marine litter in the
Nordic countries in relation to the MSFD and internationally is reviewed
below. The indicators selected in national monitoring plans for the coming years is summarised in Table 4.1.
Denmark
In the Danish marine strategy (NST, 2012a,b) the environmental objectives
for marine litter are 1) litter and its degradation products do not cause
harm to marine ecosystems and species and do not support spreading of
non-indigenous and invasive species, and 2) litter and its degradation products do not have a significant negative socio-economic impact on marine
professions and professions associated with marine areas including tourism. Due to lack of knowledge, an operational objective has not yet been
decided for microparticles. Further, it is mentioned in the strategy that in
order to come up with quantitative targets it is necessary to A) map macrolitter at the sea floor and on shores, and B) gather scientific data to establish
reference levels for marine litter and specify actions to achieve significant
reductions in the amount of litter by 2025 compared to 2015. The indicators for the targets will, according to the Danish plans for MSFD monitoring
(NST, 2014), be based on I) amount and composition of litter at reference
52
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
beaches, II) monitoring of litter as by-catch during fishery surveys
(BITS/IBTS), and III) microplastic in fish and sediment.
Sweden
In the Swedish marine strategy (SwAM 2012) the environmental objectives for marine litter are 1) litter and its degradation products do not
cause harm to the marine environment, and 2) the amount of litter that
do have or may have a negative impact on marine organisms is reduced.
The indicators for the first objective are A) amount of litter at reference
beaches, and B) amount of litter at the sea-floor, whereas an indicator
for the second objective has not been decided upon due to lack of
knowledge. Microlitter will be assessed in the water column and point
sources. The target for litter at reference beaches is a decrease in the
amount of litter with the long-term goal that the marine environment is
free of litter. The target for litter at the seafloor is a decrease in the
amount of litter with the long-term goal that the marine environment is
free of litter.
Finland
In the Finnish marine strategy (Setälä O., pers. comm) the environmental
objective is that the amount of litter and its degradation products in the
sea or entering the sea are at levels causing neither chemical nor physical harm to the marine ecosystem or harm the economic use of the marine environment including the shore. The overall target is that the
amount of litter is decreasing. The indicators for the objective are: 1) the
amount and nature of visible litter on the shores, 2) the amount of collected litter, 3) the amount and nature of visible litter on the seafloor,
and 4) the amount of microlitter in surface water at the open sea areas,
with particles >330µm.
Norway
Not being a member of the European Union a Norwegian MSFD strategy has
not been established. However, similar considerations have been made and
formulated in status documents to be used for the marine management plan
in Norway (KLIF 2011). It is stated that there is a need to map the distribution and composition of litter and to identify the yearly loading and the
sources. To obtain this information and to follow the trends and impacts of
litter it is recommended to monitor litter at beaches and at sea using the
method described by OSPAR. Further it is suggested to monitor litter at the
seafloor in collaboration with the oil industry. It is also mentioned that there
is a general lack of knowledge about micro-litter.
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
53
Iceland
Iceland is, like Norway, not an EU Member State. Marine litter is, however, an issue included in the national management plan. The Icelandic
monitoring plan is at the moment aiming at monitoring amount and
composition of litter at reference beaches.
Iceland has recently (September 2014) been a host for the International Conference on Plastic in the Marine Environment, organized by
the Icelandic chairmanship of The Nordic Council of Ministers that
aimed to give an overview of the current knowledge on the issue of plastic marine pollution, and to identify reasonable and effective measures
to minimize plastic waste in the marine environment. In addition, a
unique project has been in function since 2005, based on an agreement
between Icelandic Recycling Fund (Úrvinnslusjóður) and Federation of
Icelandic Fishing Vessel Owner, which aims to recycle material from
waste fishing nets.
Faroe Islands and Greenland
Marine litter is not at the moment targeted as a specific element within
their national marine management plans.
Table 4.1. Summary table of indicators selected in national monitoring plans for the coming years
nd
as presented by representatives of national EPAs at the 2 Nordic workshop “Marine litter –
monitoring and management in the Nordic context”, 6–7 November 2014
Indicator
Scheduled monitoring activity
Denmark
Beach litter
Seafloor
Biota
Micro-litter
2 stations in Baltic sea, 2 stations in North Sea/Skagerrak
2 yearly bottom trawl surveys in both Baltic Sea and North Sea /Skagerrak. Coordinated with fishery surveys (BITS/IBTS)
Investigate uptake in fish
Microplastic in sediments (18 stations), coordinated with contaminant monitoring
Finland
Beach litter
Seafloor
Biota
Micro-litter
3 stations in Gulf of Finland, 5 stations in Archipelago sea
Surface water micro-litter (>330µm) from open waters
Iceland
Beach litter
Seafloor
Biota
Micro-litter
2 stations
-
Norway
Beach litter
Seafloor
Biota
Micro-litter
5 stations at Norwegian mainland, 2 stations at Svalbard
Bottom trawl surveys (Barents Sea)
Plastic ingestion by fulmar (North Sea)
-
Sweden
Beach litter
Seafloor
Biota
Micro-litter
54
6 stations in Skagerrak, 10 stations in Baltic Sea and Kattegat
Bottom trawl surveys in both Baltic Sea and North Sea/Skagerrak. Coordinated with fishery surveys (BITS/IBTS)
Investigate indicator species (bird or fish) for SE conditions (2016)
Limited surveys of micro particles in water column + sediment and biota (2020), Assessment on point sources for
micro litter (2018)
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
3.2 Status for some international activities related to
management of marine litter
The environmental and legislative status for marine litter in Europe is given
by the London Convention 1972, Washington declaration 1995, MARPOL
convention (Annex V) 1998, OSPAR convention 1998, Marine Strategy
Framework Directive 2008 and HELCOM Ministerial Declaration 2010 as
described in e.g. Trouwborst (2011). Below is listed the most important
international organizations addressing marine litter.
UNEP
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is the environmental
programme of the United Nations (UN). Marine litter became a priority
issue of UNEP in 2004 and it was decided that UNEP should take lead in
developing global and regional activities (UNEP 2009). Subsequently,
UNEP’s Regional Seas Programme (RSP) has implemented activities concerning marine litter in co-operation with regional organizations (e.g. see
OSPAR below). In many regions these activities have been consolidated by a
legal framework, a so-called Regional Sea Convention (RSC), such as the
HELCOM and OSPAR Conventions.
In 2012, UNEP has also together with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the USA been lead in formulation of the
Honolulu Strategy, which is a framework established for a comprehensive
and global effort to reduce the ecological, human health, and economic impacts of marine debris (UNEP & NOAA 2012).
In 2013, a key working group (WG-40) under the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection
(GESAMP) was formed as an advisory body for the UN system on the scientific aspects of marine environmental protection with the International
Maritime Organization (IMO) as an administrative secretariat of GESAMP.
In July 2013 WG-40 completed a draft assessment report, covering “the
inputs of plastics and micro-plastics into the ocean, from land- and seabased human activities; the mechanisms and rates of particle degradation
and fragmentation; the processes controlling particle transport and accumulation; the interaction of micro-plastics with organisms, and potential
physical and chemical impacts; and public perceptions about marine litter
in general and micro-plastics in particular.” The final global assessment
report on micro-plastics in the ocean was presented at the 2nd International Ocean Research Conference in Barcelona, Spain, in November 2014.
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
55
EU
Marine litter is not addressed in the Water Framework Directive (WFD).
Therefore, the management of marine litter in both coastal and open waters is defined by the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) as
described in the introduction to this chapter. The EU has also adopted the
Honolulu Strategy mentioned above. In addition, to address specific waste
challenges the Commission has proposed an aspirational target of reducing marine litter by 30% by 2020 for the ten most common types of litter
found on beaches, as well as for fishing gear found at sea, with the list
adapted to each of the four marine regions in the EU (EU 2014).
For providing technical recommendations for the implementation of
the MSFD requirements with regard to monitoring and assessment of
marine litter, the EC Directorate-General for the Environment has established a Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter (TSG ML). TSG ML has presented the outcome of their work in three reports (Galgani et al. 2010,
2011 & 2013). The European Commission has also financed several projects dealing with different aspects of marine litter such as the projects
Save the North Sea, MARLIN, CleanSea and MARLISCO.
OSPAR
The Oslo and Paris Commission (OSPAR) is the administrator of the
OSPAR Convention protecting the marine environment of the North East
Atlantic (incl. Kattegat) involving 15 contracting parties.
OSPAR has also established an expert group with regard to developing
indicators and GES targets for MSFD in the Northeast Atlantic region
(OSPAR 2012). OSPAR has also supported the development of EcoQO for
ingestion of litter in fulmar, which has been recommended as an indicator
for impact of marine litter for the North Atlantic region (OSPAR 2014).
In addition, OSPAR has been engaged in several activities concerning
marine litter e.g. a pilot project on monitoring litter on beaches (including database), a project on monitoring litter at the sea, and publishing
guidelines for implementation of “Fishing for Litter” projects (OSPAR
2007, 2009 & 2010b).
OSPAR has developed a Regional Action Plan (RAP) for prevention and
management of marine litter that was adopted in 2014 (OSPAR 2014b).
The RAP includes implementation targets, but operational and reduction
targets still have to be developed. The RAP will be implemented during
2012–2014, after which it will be reviewed and updated in accordance
with the Quality Status Report 2012, the new OSPAR Strategy, and assessments under the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD). The
effectiveness of the actions will be monitored and the implementations
will be followed up nationally and reported every second year.
56
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
HELCOM
The Helsinki Commission (HELCOM) is the administrator of the Helsinki
Convention protecting the marine environment of the Baltic Sea area
(incl. Kattegat) involving 10 contracting parties. HELCOM has not been
engaged in many activities concerning marine litter, but the HELCOM
Baltic Sea Action Plan (BSAP) includes an agreement to raise awareness
of the negative environmental and economic effects of marine litter.
Further, HELCOM has together with UNEP produced a report giving an
overview of marine litter in the Baltic Region, and marine litter is highlighted in the latest status report as a potential problem (HELCOM 2007
& 2010). With the recent HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration
(2013) it was decided to develop a Regional Action Plan (RAP) by 2015
at the latest with the aim of achieving a significant quantitative reduction of marine litter by 2025, compared to 2015, and to prevent harm to
the coastal and marine environment.
The RAP will present concrete national and regional measures for
prevention and reduction of marine litter from its main sources, develop
common indicators and associated targets and identify socio-economic
and biological impacts of marine litter. Two marine litter workshops
have been organised in 2014 and a draft version of the RAP has been
produced that after a national consultation will be finalised for expected
adoption in March 2015 (HELCOM 2014).
ICES
The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) is a nonpolitical global organization that works for enhanced ocean sustainability
with a main focus on fisheries. ICES has since 2011 been involved in the
development of technical recommendations for the monitoring of marine
litter (Galgani et al. 2010, 2013). The ICES database has a format, which can
contain data for other relevant marine litter indicators, e.g. data collected
for litter captured in trawls during trawl surveys. Several ICES expert
groups, e.g. MCWG, WGBEC, WGFAO, have also had environmental issues
related to marine litter on the agenda in the recent years.
IMO
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is a specialized agency of
the United Nations (UN) that deals with safety and security of shipping
and the prevention of marine pollution by ships. Part of the pollution
from shipping is from dumping of waste material at sea, which is regulated by the London Convention and the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) both adopted by IMO.
IMO has with the MARPOL convention, Annex V on Prevention of Pollu-
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
57
tion by Garbage from Ships, totally prohibited the disposal of plastics
anywhere into the sea, and severely restricts discharges of other garbage from ships into coastal waters and “Special Areas”, which includes
the Baltic Sea and the North Sea (IMO 2013). The Annex also obliges
Governments to ensure the provision of reception facilities at ports and
terminals for the reception of garbage in these areas. More recently,
Resolution 60/30 of the United Nations (UN) invited IMO to review Annex V of the MARPOL Protocol with the aim to assess its effectiveness in
addressing sea-based sources of garbage. The review was completed and
amendments to Annex V were adopted in July 2011. The new provisions
under Annex V prohibit the disposal of all litter at sea unless stated otherwise. Consequently, ships will be required to send their litter to reception facilities at ports or inshore.
Figure 4.1. Port reception facilities, where ship-generated garbage easy can be
sorted into adequate waste fractions are important element in the MARPOL
convention aiming at reducing littering at sea
Photo: Jakob Strand, Grenland Harbor, Norway, 2005.
NCM
The Marine Group (HAV) within the Nordic Council of Ministers (NCM)
has since 2013 prioritised environmental aspects of Marine litter in the
Nordic waters and supported projects like:
• Plastic loading in Northern Fulmars, to gather new knowledge and to
assess pollution levels of fulmars from Faroe Islands, Iceland and
Svalbard, and also to focus on harmful effects resulting from the
possible uptake of chemicals from plastics.
• The importance of sewage treatment plants as sources of marine
microlitter in Finland, Sweden and Iceland, to investigate the waste
58
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
water treatment plants as a gateway for microlitter to the environment
and to investigate the presence of microliter in the recipient, gathering
knowledge for assessing impact on recipient biota.
• Marine litter and its sources in Nordic waters, a project related to ongoing clean-up activities in Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway.
• Marine litter in Nordic waters (project of the present report).
• Icelandic conference on plastics. The short description of the
conference is given on the page 54 in this report.
KIMO
Kommunernes Internationale Miljøorganisation (KIMO) is an international
organization representing local municipalities that work to protect and
enhance northern Europe’s marine environment. KIMO coordinates the
project “Fishing for Litter” the aim of which is to bring ashore litter gathered
in nets during fishing. KIMO has also been involved in a study of microplastic in Swedish coastal waters.
NGO’s
Non-Governmental and related Organizations (NGO’s) play a very significant role in creating awareness of marine litter e.g. by being involved in
initiatives like beach clean-ups and other campaigns.
Despite the many initiatives in the Nordic countries and internationally there is still a general lack of knowledge about marine litter (Galgani
et al. 2013). This concerns all relevant aspects, i.e. amounts, composition, spatial distribution, temporal trends, and the potential harmful
biological, physical, and chemical impacts on marine life and human
health of marine litter. The gaps in knowledge are a constraint in identifying baseline as well as targets and effective measures to reduce marine
litter pollution. Accordingly, there is a need for research that can link
quantities of litter and associated harm in the context of good environmental status (GES). But there is also a need for common, comparable,
and quality assured monitoring tools for marine litter and harmonized
recommendations and guidelines to assess GES at regional, national, and
European scales. Furthermore, there is a need for international databases that can store the various types of marine litter data and ensure its
quality, so that data for marine litter can be available for wider assessments.
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
59
4. Conclusions
There have been and are currently several on-going projects, studying various aspect of pollution with marine litter in the Nordic waters that demonstrate ubiquitous occurrence of marine litter, including microplastics, at
beaches, in the water column, on the sea floor, and in biota in the sea today.
Studies on amounts, composition and other relevant properties and impact
of marine litter have been performed in most Nordic sea regions covering
both Baltic Sea, Skagerrak–Kattegat, North Sea, North Atlantic as well as the
Arctic (although often using different types of measurements), which have
potential for being used as environmental indicators, see Table 5.1. Several
of these indicators have also been proposed as indicators for national monitoring programmes in the coming years.
Table 5.1. Summary table on studies in different sea regions on marine litter indicators from the
Nordic countries described in this report. Indicators that have been selected as indicators for
national monitoring programmes in the coming years are highlighted in italic
Marine litter indicators
Baltic Sea and Belt Sea
North Sea, Skagerrak and
Kattegat
North Atlantic and Arctic
Macro-litter
Beaches
Water column
Sea floor
Biota
DK, FI, SE
DK, SE
-
DK, NO, SE
DK, NO, SE
DK, NO, SE,
NO, IS, FO
NO, FO
NO, FO, GL, IS
Micro-litter
Beaches
Water column
Sediments
Biota
FI, SE
DK
DK
DK, SE
NO, SE
DK, SE
SE
IS
-
Countries: Denmark (DK), Norway (NO), Faroe Islands (FO), Finland (FI), Iceland (IS), Greenland (GL)
and Sweden (SE).
These studies provide evidence that marine litter is a highly relevant
environmental issue in Nordic waters and especially in areas that serve
as final destinations for huge amounts of litter from other countries and
sea regions.
Although the same indicators have been used in different surveys, the
results are not always fully comparable as different methodologies for sampling and analyses have been employed. The indicators for beach litter and
stomach contents in the seabird northern fulmar for litter in biota, which
both have been used for monitoring for more than 10 years, seem at the
moment to be most developed indicators for regional comparisons. They
have at the moment the most well-defined methodologies, although minor
discrepancies might exist between the exact protocols used in different
surveys. The results of these studies support the conclusion that both local
land- and sea-based activities, as well as long-range transport of marine
litter are important sources of the marine litter in Nordic seas. In particular,
the beach litter data (for 100 m stretches) indicate that marine litter transported with ocean currents from other sea regions are an important external source for especially the eastern North Sea, Skagerrak and the some
parts of the Arctic, e.g. at Svalbard.
This also shows that marine litter is a transnational problem. It is
therefore important that the Nordic countries also are involved in management actions actively combatting marine litter pollution, both nationally and internationally, i.e. within the frames of EU, regional sea
conventions and UN. It is also essential that cooperation and the building
of scientific networks continue to be supported in the Nordic region.
For other marine litter indicators than beach litter and plastic ingestion by fulmar (see table 5.2), there is still a need to find out to what extent methodologies used in different surveys in the Nordic countries can
produce comparable datasets, if needed. One of the overall targets in the
MSFD, the regional seas actions plans and the national management plans
for the marine litter indicators is to achieve significant decreasing temporal trends of marine litter in the coming years, and this can be assessed
independently of the specific methodology as long as the continuous reported measurements, i.e. monitoring, is based on a well-defined methodology performed in the same sampling sites. Thereby, most of the data
reported on different types of marine litter indicators can provide a good
basis for prioritisation of activities regarding marine litter indicators for
MSFD monitoring and national management plans in the Nordic countries.
62
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
Table 5.2. Summary table of the methodologies employed in the Nordic countries for the
reported marine litter indicators
Marine litter indicators
Macro-litter
Beaches
Methodologies
Surveys at 100m and 1 km stretches according to OSPAR, UNEP or EU monitoring
guidelines
In addition, various public clean-up activitie
Water column
No studies reported
Sea floor
Trawl surveys (BITS, IBTS)
ROV video transects
Manned submersible
“Fishing for litter”
Retrieval of lost fishing nets
Biota
Plastic ingestion by seabirds like fulmars
Plastic as nest material for seabirds like kittiwake
Entanglement of seabirds like gannets
Entanglement of fish and crustaceans in ghost nets
Micro-litter
Water column (manta-trawl, filter pump)
Beach sand/Tidal sediments
Sub-tidal sediments
Biota (Benthic invertebrates and fish
The complexity of the issues related to the monitoring and actions for
combatting the marine litter makes it clear that it requires interdisciplinary approach for improvement of environmental assessment, source
identification and solutions development to the problem. Thus it is necessary to continue collaboration involving different actors, i.e. industry,
environmental managers, researchers, civil societal organisations, into
the process of action plans development.
It is clear that both, the increasing trends in the marine litter and its
negative effects onto the marine environment make this subject an important environmental issue, also for the coming years. The priority needs
therefore still to be given to further developments of tools that can improve our understanding of the occurrence, trends and impact of litter in
the aquatic environments as well as initiation of actions that are focused
on the preventive measures, e.g. marine litter sources identification, societal attitudes change towards garbage discharges to the oceans, etc.
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
63
5. References
Agersnap S. 2013. Mikroplastik i havmiljøet, metode til kvantificering af mikroplastik
i havvand, blåmusling og fisk, student report from Aarhus University, Denmark,
28pp.
Anon 2008. Directive 2008/56/EC of the European parliament and of the council of
17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine
environment policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive). Official Journal of the
European Union L 164/19–40.
Anon 2010. Commission decision of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters. Official Journal of the
European Union L 232/14–24.
Aniansson B. et al. 2007. OSPAR Pilot Project on Monitoring Marine Beach Litter.
Monitoring of marine litter in the OSPAR region. Biodiversity Series.
Anker-Nilssen T. 2014. Plastikkpartikler i havhester som strander i Sørvest-Norge,
Indicator fact sheet from Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA).
Bergmann M., & Klages M. 2012. Increase of litter at the Arctic deep-sea observatory
HAUSGARTEN. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(12), 2734–41.
doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.09.018
Browne et al. 2004.
Cheshire A., & Adler E. 2009. UNEP/IOC Guidelines on Survey and Monitoring of Marine Litter. Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 186 IOC Technical Series No. 83.
Claessens M., De Meester S., Van Landuyt L., De Clerck K. & Janssen C.R., 2011. Occurrence and distribution of microplastics in marine sediments along the Belgian
coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin 62, 2199–2204.
Claessens M., Van Cauwenberghe L., Vandegehuchte, M.B. & Janssen C.R., 2013. New
techniques for the detection of microplastics in sediments and field collected organisms. Marine Pollution Bulletin 70, 227–233.
Cole M., Lindeque P., Fileman E., Halsband C., Goodhead R., Moger J., & Galloway T. S.
2013. Microplastic ingestion by zooplankton. Environmental Science & Technology,
47(12), 6646–55. doi:10.1021/es400663f
de Haas H., van Weering T.C.E., de Stigter H. (2002). Organic carbon in shelf seas:
sinks or sources, processes and products. Continental Shelf Research Volume
22(5): 691–717
Derksen D. M., Kindermann O., Schweikart A., & Steinecke K. 2012. Belastung mariner Lebensräume durch Mikroplastik: Stand der Wissenschaft sowie erste Ergebnisse einer Vorstudie zur Erfassung und Bewertung des Vorkommens von Mikroplastik- granulat im Sediment von Küsten der deutschen Nordsee. Bremer Beiträge Zur Geographie U. Raumplanung, 44, 96–107.
Derraik J. G. B. 2002. The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: a
review. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 44, 842–852.
Dippo B.M., 2012. Microplastics in the coastal environment of west Iceland. Faculty
of Buiness and Science. University of Akureyri, p. 66.
Falk K., Durinck J., 1993. The winter diet of thick-billed murres, Uria lomvia, in Western Greenland, 1988–1989. Rev. Can. Zool. 71, 264–272.
Eisma D. & Kalf J. 1987. Dispersal, concentration and deposition of suspended matter
in the North Sea. Journal of the Geological Society 144:161-178.
Eklund B., Elfström M., Borg H. (2008). Tributyltin Originates from Pleasure Boats in
Sweden in Spite of Firm Restrictions. Open Environmental Sciences, 2: 124–132
Eriksen, M., Mason, S., Wilson, S., Boxa, C., Zellers, A., Edwards, W., Farley, H. & Amatoa, S., 2013. Microplastic pollution in the surface waters of the Laurentian Great
Lakes. Marine Pollution Bulletin in press.
European Commission. 2008. DIRECTIVE 2008/56/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive).
European Commission. 2010. COMMISSION DECISION of 1 September 2010 on criteria and methodological standards on good environmental status of marine waters
(notified under document C (2010) 5956) (2010/477/EU).
European Commission. 2014. COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS. Towards a circular
economy: A zero waste programme for Europe. (COM(2014) 398 final).
Farrell P., & Nelson K. 2013. Trophic level transfer of microplastic: Mytilus edulis (L.)
to Carcinus maenas (L.). Environmental Pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987), 177, 1–3.
doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2013.01.046
Fiskebåt 2012. Fiskebåt støtter “Fishing-for-litter”. http://www.fiskebat.no/
default.asp?page=9321,5167&lang=1&item=53596,1
Fleet D., van Franeker J., Dagevos J., Hougee M. (2009). Marine Litter. Wadden Sea
Ecosystem No. 25, Thematic Report No. 3.8 for the Quality Status Report 2009, Trilateral Monitoring and Assessment Group (TMAG).
Foekema, E.M., De Gruijter, C., Mergia, M.T., van Franeker, J.A., Murk, A.T.J. & Koelmans, A.A., 2013. Plastic in North Sea fish. Environmental Science and Technology
47, 8818−8824.
Gabrielsen G.W. Et hav af søppel. Kronikk 3. september 2013 I Adresseavisen, Norge,
http://www.adressa.no/meninger/kronikker/article8209545.ece
Galgani F., Fleet D., van Franeker J., et al. 2010. Marine Strategy Framework Directive
Task Group 10 Report Marine litter, JRC Scientific and Technical Report, ICES/JRC/
IFREMER Joint Report (No. 31210–2009/2010), Ed. by N. Zampoukas. 57 pp.
Galgani F., Hanke G, Werner S.,& Piha H. (2011). MSFD GES Technical Subgroup on
Marine Litter. Technical Recommendations for the Implementation of MSFD Requirements. JRC Scientific and Technical Report, EUR 25009 EN – 2011. 93 pp.
Galgani F., Hanke G., Werner S., et al. (2013). Guidance on Monitoring of Marine
Litter in European Seas. MSFD GES Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter (TSG-ML).
Gregory M.R. 2009. Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings—
entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 364: 2013–2025.
Hidalgo–Ruz V., Gutow L., Thompson R. C., & Thiel M. 2012. Microplastics in the marine
environment: a review of the methods used for identification and quantification. Environmental Science & Technology, 46(6), 3060–75. doi:10.1021/es2031505.
Gilman N.E., 2013. Examining spatial concentrations of marine micro-plastics on
shorelines in South Pudget Sound, Washington. The Evergreen State College, p. 101.
66
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
Hartwig E., Clemens T., Heckroth M. 2007. Plastic debris as nesting material in a
Kittiwake-(Rissa tridactyla)-colony at the Jammerbugt, Northwest Denmark. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54: 595–597.
HELCOM 2007. Marine litter in the Baltic Sea region: Assessment of the Marine Litter
problem in the Baltic region and priorities for response, Baltic Marine Environment
Protection Commission. 21 pp.
HELCOM 2010. Ecosystem health of the Baltic Sea 2003–2007: HELCOM initial holistic assessment. Balt. Sea Environ. Proc. No. 122, 63 pp.
HELCOM Copenhagen Ministerial Declaration (2013). Taking Further Action to Implement the Baltic Sea Action Plan – Reaching Good Environmental Status for a
healthy Baltic Sea. 19 pp.
HELCOM 2014. HELCOM Regional Action Plan on marine litter (RAP ML), draft presented at 2nd Nordic workshop “Marine litter – monitoring and management in the
Nordic context”, 6–7 November 2014.
HELCOM CORESET 2014. Outcome of the second workshop of the project operationalization of HELCOM core indicators (CORESET II 2–2014), Gothenburg, Sweden,
29–30 September 2014.
Hoellein T., Rojas M., Pink A., Gasior J., Kelly J. (2014) Anthropogenic Litter in Urban
Freshwater Ecosystems: Distribution and Microbial Interactions. PLoS ONE 9(6):
e98485. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0098485.
MARLIN 2013. Final Report of Baltic Marine Litter Project MARLIN – Litter Monitoring and Raising Awareness. Appendix 2 UNEP Guidelines Translated to Baltic Sea
Conditions. Online August 2014.
Jartun M., Ottesen R.T., Steinnes E., Volden T. (2009). Painted surfaces – Important
sources of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) contamination to the urban and marine environment, Environmental Pollution 157 295–302.
JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. (2011). Marine Litter. Technical Recommendations for the Implementation of MSFD Requirements. MSFD GES Technical Subgroup on Marine Litter. doi:10.2788/92438.
Johansson A., 2011. Mikroskopiska antropogena partiklar i marina sediment. Göteborgs universitet, p. 37.
KIMO 2013. Fishing for litter, http://www.kimointernational.org/FishingforLitter.aspx
KLIF 2011. Kunnskap om marint søppel i Norge 2010. Report from Klima- og Forurensningsdirektoratet and Direktoratet for Naturforvaltning, TA–2753. 33 pp.
Kühn S., & van Franeker J. a. 2012. Plastic ingestion by the northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) in Iceland. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64(6), 1252–4.
doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.02.027.
Lattin G.L., Moore C.J., Zellers A.F., Moore S.L. & Weisberg S.B., 2004. A comparison of
neustonic plastic and zooplankton at different depths near the southern California
shore. Marine Pollution Bulletin 49, 291–294.
Law K.L., Morét–Ferguson S., Maximenko N.A., Proskurowski G., Peacock E.E., Hafner J.
& Reddy, C.M., 2010. Plastic accumulation in the North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre. Science 329, 1185–1188.
Leslie H.A., van der Meulen M.D., Kleissen F.M. & Vethaak A.D., 2011. Microplastic
litter in the Dutch Marine Environment. In: Deltares, N. (Ed.). IVM Institute for Environmental Studies, p. 97.
Magnusson K. & Norén F., 2011. Mikroskopiskt skräp i havet – metodutveckling för
miljöövervakning. In: Rapport till Naturvårdsverket (Ed.). Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency, p. 22.
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
67
Magnusson K. 2014. Micro-litter and other microscopic anthropogenic particles in
the sea area off Rauma at Turku, Finland. Report from the swedish Environmental
research Institute. 18pp.
Magnusson K. & Wahlberg C. (2014). Mikroskopiske skräppartiklar I vatten from
avloppsreningsverk. Report No. B2208 from Swedish Environmental Research Institute, 33pp.
Maes T. & Garnacho E. 2013. Summary of current methods of monitoring and assessment for marine litter. Deliverable D1.2 report. MARLISCO project. MARine
Litter in Europe Seas: Social AwareneS and CO-Reponsibility. (EC FP7 Coordinated
and support action, SIS-MML-289042), July 2013. 25pp.
Mehlhart G., Blepp M. 2012). Study on land—based sourced litter (LSL) in the marine
environment. Review of sources and literature In the Context of the Initiative of the
Declaration of the Global Plastics Associations for Solutions on Marine Litter. Report from the Öko-Institut e.V. – Institut für angewandte Ökologie, 128pp.
Murray F. & Cowie, P. R. (2011). Plastic contamination in the decapod crustacean
Nephrops norvegicus (Linnaeus, 1758). Marine Pollution Bulletin, 62(6), 1207–17.
doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.03.032.
Negri A, Marshall P. (2009). TBT contamination of remote marine environments:
Ship groundings andice-breakers as sources of organotins in the Great Barrier Reef
and Antarctica. Journal of Environmental Management 90 S31–S40.
Norén F. 2010. Survey of microscopic anthropogenic particles in Skagerrak. Pilot study
October–November 2010 Norwegian Climate and Pollution Agency (KLIF), p. 19.
Norden Andersen O.G. (1978). Elastic band pollution and its sublethal effects upon
fish. Biokon. Rep. 7.1–8.
Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries, 2011). Opprenskning av tapte fiskeredskap
2011. Rapport fra Fiskeridirektoratet (http://www.fiskeridir.no).
Norwegian Directorate of Fisheries (2013). Opprenskning av tapte fiskeredskap
2013. Rapport fra Fiskeridirektoratet (http://www.fiskeridir.no).
NST 2012a:Basisanalyse til brug for Danmarks Havstrategi. Miljøministeriet, Naturstyrelsen. 100 pp.
NST 2012b: Miljømålsrapport til brug for Danmarks Havstrategi. Miljøministeriet,
Naturstyrelsen. 30 pp.
Obbard R.W, Sadri S., Ying Qi Wong Y.Q., Khitun A.A., Baker I., Thompson R.C. 2014.
Global warming releases microplastic legacy frozen in Arctic Sea ice. Earth's Future
2(6):315–320.
OSPAR 2007. OSPAR Pilot Project on Monitoring Marine Beach Litter – Monitoring of
marine litter in the OSPAR region. OSPAR report 386. 74 pp.
OSPAR 2009. Marine litter in the North-East Atlantic Region: assessment and priorities for response. London, United Kingdom. 127 pp.
OSPAR 2010: Quality Status Report 2010. OSPAR Commission. 176 pp.
OSPAR 2010b. OSPAR Recommendation 2010/19 on the reduction of marine litter
through the implementation of fishing for litter initiatives. OSPAR 10/23/1-E, Annex 47.
OSPAR 2012. MSFD Advice document on Good environmental status – Descriptor 10:
Marine Litter. A living document – Version of 17 January 2012, Biodiversity Series,
Prepared by the Intercorrespondence Group on Marine Litter of the OSPAR Committee of the Environmental Impact of Human Activities (EIHA), 9pp.
OSPAR 2014a. Litter in the Marine Environment – Plastic Particles in Fulmar Stomachs – 2014. OSPAR indicator fact sheet EIHA14/AS02.
68
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
OSPAR 2014b. Regional Action Plan for Prevention and Management of Marine Litter
in the North-East Atlantic, OSPAR Agreement 2014–1.
Provencher et al. (2009). Evidence for increased ingestion of plastics by northern
fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis) in the Canadian Arctic. Marine Pollution Bulletin
58(7):1092–1095.
Provencher et al. (2014). Prevalence of marine debris in marine birds from the North
Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 84: 411–417.
Rochman, C. M., Browne, M. A., Halpern, et al. (2013). Policy: Classify plastic waste as
hazardous. Nature, 494(7436), 169–71. doi:10.1038/494169a.
Setälä O., Fleming–Lehtinen V. & Lehtiniemi M., 2014. Ingestion and transfer of microplastics in the planktonic food web. Environmental Pollution 185, 77–83.
Skóra M. E., Sapota M. R., Skóra K. E. & Pawelec A. 2012. Diet of the twaite shad Alosa
fallax (Lacépède, 1803) (Clupeidae) in the Gulf of Gdansk, the Baltic Sea. Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies, 41(3), 24–32. doi:10.2478/s13545-012-0024-0.
Strand et al. (in prep). Occurrence of microplastic particles and bio-geochemical
relationships in sediments from Danish waters. Poster presented at 2nd Nordic
workshop “Marine litter – monitoring and management in the Nordic context”, 6–7
November 2014.
SwAM 2012. God havsmiljö 2020 – Marin strategi för Nordsjön och Östersjön. Del 1:
Inledande bedömning av miljötilstånd och socioekonomisk analys. Havs- och vattenmyndighetens rapport 2012:19. 334 pp.
SwAM 2012b. God havsmiljö 2020 – Marin strategi för Nordsjön och Östersjön. Del 2:
God miljöstatus och miljökvalitetsnormer. Havs- och vattenmyndighetens rapport
2012:20. 154 pp.
Sørensen T. K., Stedmon C., Enders K. & Henriksen O. 2013. Analyse af marint affald i
sild og hvilling fra det nordlige Storebælt. Rapport udarbejdet til Naturstyrelsen. 12 p.
Tanaka K., Takada H., Yamashita R., Mizukawa K., Fukuwaka M., Watanuki Y. 2013.
Accumulation of plastic-derived chemicals in tissues of seabirds ingesting marine
plastics. Marine Pollution Bulletin 69: 219–222.
Thompson R.C., Olsen Y., Mitchell R.P., Davis A., Rowland S.J., John A.W.G., McGonigle D.
& Russell A.E., 2004. Lost at sea: Where is all the plastic? Science 304, 838.
Trevail A.M., Kühn S., Gabrielsen G.W., van Franeker J.A. 2014. Quantifying marine
plastic litter in the European Arctic. Preliminary findings from Norwegian Polar
Institute on plastic ingestion of fulmars from Svalbard, Norway. Poster presented at
2nd workshop “Marine litter – monitoring and management in the Nordic context”,
6–7 November 2014.
Trouwborst A. 2011: Managing marine litter: Exploring the evolving role of international and European law in confronting a persistent environmental problem.
Merkourios 27/73: 4–18.
UNEP 2005. Marine Litter. An analytical overview. United Nations Environment
Programme.
UNEP 2009: Marine Litter: A Global Challenge. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi. 232 pp.
UNEP & NOAA 2012. The Honolulu strategy. A global framework for prevention and
management of marine debris. 57pp.
Van Cauwenberghe L., Claessens M., Vandegehuchte M. & Janssen C.R., 2012. Occurrence of microplastics in mussels (Mytilus edulis) and lugworms (Arenicola marina)
collected along the French–Belgian–Dutch coast. VLIZ Special Publication 55.
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
69
Van Franeker J., Blaize C., Danielsen J., et al. 2011. Monitoring plastic ingestion by the
northern fulmar Fulmarus glacialis in the North Sea. Environmental Pollution
(Barking, Essex : 1987), 159(10), 2609–15. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.06.008.
Von Moos N., Burkhardt–Holm P. & Köhler A. 2012. Uptake and Effects of Microplastics on Cells and Tissue of the Blue Mussel Mytilus edulis L. after an Experimental
Exposure. Environmental Science & Technology, 46, 11327–11335.
Wright S. L., Thompson R. C. & Galloway T. S. 2013. The physical impacts of microplastics on marine organisms: a review. Environmental Pollution (Barking, Essex :
1987), 178, 483–92. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2013.02.031.
Zettler E.R., Mincer T.J., Amaral–Zettler L.A. 2013. Life in the “Plastisphere”: Microbial Communities on Plastic Marine Debris. Environmental Science & Technology 47
(13): 7137–7146.
70
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
6. Sammenfatning
I de senere år har der været øget fokus på de miljømæssige problemer af
marint affald, efter at en række undersøgelser har beskrevet, at der på
global skala forekommer store mængder af affald bestående af plast og
andre syntetiske materialer i havene. Internationale institutioner som
EU, OSPAR, HELCOM og FN har identificeret affald i havet som et vigtigt
område, som bør prioriteres både i form af videnopbygning og udvikling
af miljø-indikatorer, der kan bruges til at vurdere omfanget af belastningen og de effekter, som affaldet har i havmiljøet. I Europa er marint affald nu højt på den miljømæssige dagsorden, især efter at EU’s Havstrategidirektiv er blevet implementeret. Havstrategidirektivet forpligter
EU's medlemslande til at udvikle og fastsætte miljømål og dertilhørende
indikatorer for marint affald og igangsætte andre tiltag for at værne om
havmiljøet. Dette har medvirket til, at miljøproblemer med affald i havet
også har fået stigende opmærksomhed i de nordiske lande.
I de nordiske lande har der været og er forsat en række igangværende
feltundersøgelser omkring forekomst og effekter af affald i havet, som er
udført i regi af forskningsprojekter, overvågning og andre typer af undersøgelser. Disse undersøgelser understøtter, at forekomsten af affald er
allestedsværende i nordisk havmiljø, dvs. både i Østersøen, Nordsøen og
Nordatlanten samt i Arktis. I disse områder kan affald findes både på
strande, i vandsøjlen (inkl. havis), på og i havbunden og i de marine fødekæder (biota).
Denne rapport giver et overblik over de tilgængelige data fra undersøgelser af marint affald i de nordiske farvande. Disse data stammer fra
forskellige feltstudier af mængder, udbredelse, sammensætning og påvirkninger af både større stykker affald og af mikroskopiske partikler.
Derved kan de rapporterede data bruges som input til den fortsatte prioritering af nationale aktiviteter, især med henblik på etablering af miljømål og dertilhørende indikatorer for marint affald, som er relevante
for overvågning og miljøvurderinger i forbindelse med udmøntningen af
EU’s havstrategidirektiv og de nationale forvaltningsplaner i de nordiske
lande. Det bør dog også bemærkes, at resultaterne fra de forskellige
nordiske undersøgelser ikke altid er sammenlignelige, da forskellige
metoder er blevet anvendt til prøvetagning og analyser. Der er derfor
behov for en fortsat fælles opsamling af viden og erfaringer og standar-
disering af metoder med udgangspunkt i de regionale forhold for at sætte dette miljøproblem i et fælles nordisk perspektiv. Denne rapport indeholder oplysninger, der kan bruges som et bidrag til denne proces.
72
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
7. Workshop 1
Programme and participants
Expert workshop on Marine Litter in the Nordic Countries – and indicators relevant for EU MSFD. Place: Kristineberg Marine Research Station
(KMRS), Göteborg, Sweden. Date: 14th of November 2013.
Workshop agenda
1) Presentations from 2–3 key-note speakers (20 min each) on status for
monitoring and assessment of Marine Strategy Framework Directive
(MSFD) relevant indicators on marine litter (Descriptor 10), which will
cover both:
• Macroscopic pieces of marine litter,
• Microplastic particles,
• Impact of marine litter on the marine organisms.
2) Short presentations from workshop participants (5–10 min each) on
relevant activities in regard to research, monitoring and assessments on
marine litter in the Nordic countries. These short presentations will
function as the basis for further discussion on:
• Strengthening the research and monitoring network in Nordic
countries on marine litter issues,
• Mapping the “litter-talents” in the Nordic countries: Building the
interdisciplinary infrastructure in relation to the sampling, analytical
and other capacities.
3) Group work/discussion on the main topics of the workshop:
• Status of the work on marine litter in the Nordic countries.
• Evaluation of the MSFD indicators for marine litter relevant for
monitoring and assessment in the Nordic countries.
• The advantages and disadvantages for the application of common
indicators for the MSFD.
4) Provide first recommendations on (common?) monitoring strategies
of marine litter in the Nordic countries.
Participants of the Expert workshop on Marine Litter in the Nordic Countries – and indicators
relevant for EU MSFD
Country
Name
Organisation, adresse
Denmark
Denmark
Denmark
Denmark
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Norway
Norway
Norway
Faroe Islands/Sweden
Finland
Germany
UK
Thomas Kirk Sørensen
Jakob Strand
Jens Wurgler Hansen
Zhanna Tairova
Jessica Ångström
Kerstin Magnusson
Fredrik Noren
Runar Mathisen
Kevin Thomas
Lars Johan Naustvoll
Johannis Danielsen
Outi Setälä
Nicolai Fricke
Thomas Maes
Technical University of Denmark (DTU Aqua)
Aarhus University
Aarhus University
Aarhus University
The Keep Sweden Tidy Foundation
Swedish Environemental Research Institute (IVL)
Swedish Environemental Research Institute (IVL)
Norwegian Environmental Agency
NIVA Norway
Institute of Marine Research (IMR)
Faroe Marine Research Institute (FMRI)
SYKE Marine Research Centre
Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries (Thünen)
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)
74
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
8. Workshop 2
Programme and participants
Workshop “Marine litter – monitoring and management in the Nordic
context.” Place: Conference Center of the Norwegian Environment Agency, Strømsveien 96, Oslo. Date: 6–7 November 2014.
Workshop aimed to create a platform/forum for the national environmental authorities and other stakeholders (NGO’s, industry, etc.) in
Nordic countries, for the discussions on the following topics:
• Current status on: 1) Facts and awareness on marine litter (ML)
issues in a Nordic perspective; 2) How far have national management
plans and monitoring for ML developed in relation to implementation
of Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) and regional action
plans (RAP) produced by OSPAR and HELCOM.
• Collaboration between three main actors on establishing a better
knowledge and data transfer, together with action planning between
the relevant main actors: scientific communities, environmental
managers and society (civil societal organization, NGO’s, industry,
etc.) in order to cover different relevant indicators for marine litter,
like beach surveys, fulmar ingestion, fishery impact, socio-economic
impact, source identification, and measures in the Nordic countries.
• Regional Action Plans (RAP) – which actions and measures are the
most important, effective and realistic for combatting marine litter.
Participants of the workshop “Marine litter – monitoring and management in the Nordic context”
Country
Name
Organisation, adresse
Denmark
Denmark
Denmark
Denmark
Denmark/Slovenia
Denmark
Denmark
Denmark
Denmark
Thomas Kirk Sørensen
Ryan d'Arcy Metcalfe
Helle Fabiansen
Claudia Sick
Andreja Palatinus; Štefan Trdan
Robin Lenz; Kristina Enders
Jakob Strand
Jens Wurgler Hansen
Zhanna Tairova
Technical University of Denmark (DTU Aqua)
KIMO Danmark
Plastindustrien
NGO “Plastic change”
EEA (EEA, Institute for Water of the Republic of Slovenia)
Technical University of Denmark (DTU Aqua)
Aarhus University
Aarhus University
Aarhus University
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Sweden
Jessica Ångström
Kerstin Magnusson
Johanna Eriksson
Jessica Lundqvist
Katja Broeg
Martin Hassellöv
The Keep Sweden Tidy Foundation
Swedish Environemental Research Institute (IVL)
Havs- och vattenmyndigheten
Göteborg University
Stockholm University
Göteborg Universitet
Norway
Norway
Norway
Norway
Norway
Norway
Norway
Norway
Runar Mathisen
Erlend Standal
Lars Johan
Claudia Halsband
Camilla Pettersen
Norith Habberstad Eckbo
Liv-Marit Hansen
Peter Sundt
Norwegian Environmental Agency
Norwegian Environmental Agency
Havforskningsinstituttet
Akvaplan-NIVA in Tromsø
Norwegian Environmental Agency
Norwegian Environmental Agency
Oslofjorden friluftsråd
Mepex Consult AS
Faroe Islands
Iceland
Iceland
Johannis Danielsen
Helgi Jensson
Gudlaugur Sverrisson
Faroe Marine Research Institute (FMRI)
Environment Agency of Iceland
Icelandic Recycling Fund
UK
UK
Thomas Maes
John Mouat
Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)
The OSPAR Commission Secretariat
76
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
TemaNord 2015:521
TemaNord 2015:521
Ved Stranden 18
DK-1061 Copenhagen K
www.norden.org
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
Marine Litter in Nordic waters
This report provides an overview of the currently available
data from studies on marine litter in the Nordic countries.
This covers various field studies on amount, distribution,
characteristics and impact of macro- and micro-litter
particles. The data reported can provide a good basis
for prioritisation of activities, especially having the
establishment of marine litter indicators for EU’s Marine
Strategy Framework Directive monitoring and national
management plans in the Nordic countries in mind.
TemaNord 2015:521
ISBN 978-92-893-4030-4 (PRINT)
ISBN 978-92-893-4031-1 (PDF)
ISBN 978-92-893-4032-8 (EPUB)
ISSN 0908-6692
TN2015521 omslag.indd 1
11-05-2015 08:00:03